Read on Twitter
1. I know it's no fun to write a piece along the lines of "Scientists find exactly what they expected", but when you try to spin it into a man-bites-dog story, @NPRjonhamilton, and when you put a misleading headline on it, @NPR, you cause real harm. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
2. What's wrong with the story? The way that the story is sold, in the headline "Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought"—and right from the first sentence—you'd think this was a big surprise to the epidemiology community.
3. But what the story actually reports are recent results from and Indiana serosurvey suggesting infection fatality rates in exactly the range of what most epidemiologists have been saying for weeks to months.
4. And to make it seem like the Indiana IFR estimate of 0.58%—the actual focus of the story—is a breakthrough, you've compared it not with we've all believed to be true for a long time, but instead with an alternative that almost no one ever took seriously.
5. You even acknowledge later in the story that the 0.5%-1% IFR has been conventional wisdom for months. You talk about how Tony Fauci said this in March.
6. You quote @cmyeaton giving exactly the 0.5-1.0% range, but describe the role of mild infections in reducing IFR below CFR as if it's a new realization, not something we've been accounting for since January.
7. You quote Juliette Unwin from the Imperial College team that has been forecasting the pandemic from the start, and she also puts the numbers in the same range.
8. So the headline is simply incorrect.
Why does this matter? It matters because this pandemic is so heavily politicized. When you put out stories like this, it provides ammunition to those who are trying to spin alternative narratives.
Why does this matter? It matters because this pandemic is so heavily politicized. When you put out stories like this, it provides ammunition to those who are trying to spin alternative narratives.
9. Take this use of your article to defend the Bakersfield duo. Yes, the poster didn't even read the article. You claim an IFR of 0.5-1.0% (my personal point estimate has been around 1 for months), whereas the Bakersfield doctors were claiming 0.03%.
https://twitter.com/BobSchaller/status/1267205303357116421
https://twitter.com/BobSchaller/status/1267205303357116421
10. But the problem is that most people who see a tweet like this won't read the article either. They'll just take away two messages.
1. Epidemiologists were wrong
2. COVID is not so dangerous
Both are false, and both are dangerous.
Please do better. Thank you.
1. Epidemiologists were wrong
2. COVID is not so dangerous
Both are false, and both are dangerous.
Please do better. Thank you.
