Read on Twitter
1/H
There was a recent effort to champion Nate Silver ( @NateSilver538) as a non-expert who speaks uncomfortable truths experts don't want to hear.
That's misguided, as we can see by examining how many SARS-CoV-2-infected get hospitalized.
https://twitter.com/LajXtra/status/1383948036905127946
There was a recent effort to champion Nate Silver ( @NateSilver538) as a non-expert who speaks uncomfortable truths experts don't want to hear.
That's misguided, as we can see by examining how many SARS-CoV-2-infected get hospitalized.
https://twitter.com/LajXtra/status/1383948036905127946
2/H
Some context:
Infection fatality rate, or IFR, is the proportion of people infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2 who die of the disease COVID-19.
Infection hospitalization rate, or IHR, is like IFR, but with COVID-19 hospitalizations instead of deaths
https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/analyses/first_adjusted_mortality_estimates_and_risk_assessment/2019-nCoV-preliminary_age_and_time_adjusted_mortality_rates_and_pandemic_risk_assessment.html
Some context:
Infection fatality rate, or IFR, is the proportion of people infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2 who die of the disease COVID-19.
Infection hospitalization rate, or IHR, is like IFR, but with COVID-19 hospitalizations instead of deaths
https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/analyses/first_adjusted_mortality_estimates_and_risk_assessment/2019-nCoV-preliminary_age_and_time_adjusted_mortality_rates_and_pandemic_risk_assessment.html
3/H
Seroprevalence studies measure antibody levels to estimate the number of infected people.
Dividing COVID-19 hospitalizations by that number of infected people gives a seroprevalence-based IHR.
IHR is good to know.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1386751496390336518
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341185258964836353
Seroprevalence studies measure antibody levels to estimate the number of infected people.
Dividing COVID-19 hospitalizations by that number of infected people gives a seroprevalence-based IHR.
IHR is good to know.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1386751496390336518
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341185258964836353
4/H
Neil Ferguson's team at Imperial College gave IFR + IHR estimates for Great Britain (GB) and the USA in March 2020.
Their IFR estimates held up well for the mitigated pandemic that actually occurred.
Their IHR was ~4.4%.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1353875481880354825
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/77482/14/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Neil Ferguson's team at Imperial College gave IFR + IHR estimates for Great Britain (GB) and the USA in March 2020.
Their IFR estimates held up well for the mitigated pandemic that actually occurred.
Their IHR was ~4.4%.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1353875481880354825
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/77482/14/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
5/H
This is where Nate Silver objects.
He claims IHR was more like ~2%, and so Ferguson et al.'s ~4.4% value was an over-estimate.
He's been saying this for about a year or more, despite people repeatedly explaining he's wrong.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1255500333922635782
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1312501274877726722
This is where Nate Silver objects.
He claims IHR was more like ~2%, and so Ferguson et al.'s ~4.4% value was an over-estimate.
He's been saying this for about a year or more, despite people repeatedly explaining he's wrong.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1255500333922635782
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1312501274877726722
6/H
Silver recently brought up this up again, after experts correctly criticized his non-expert + uninformed claims on vaccine policy / communication.
So he may have thought pointing out experts being wrong might help him.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1383871962758344709
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1382371294109392910
Silver recently brought up this up again, after experts correctly criticized his non-expert + uninformed claims on vaccine policy / communication.
So he may have thought pointing out experts being wrong might help him.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1383871962758344709
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1382371294109392910
7/H
With that background out of the way, it might help to assess how Silver's claims held up in comparison to experts like Ferguson et al.
Well, the CDC's most recent IHR is ~4.9%. So not a good start for Silver.
https://twitter.com/Balgor11/status/1386434734696255489
http://web.archive.org/web/20210425213134/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
With that background out of the way, it might help to assess how Silver's claims held up in comparison to experts like Ferguson et al.
Well, the CDC's most recent IHR is ~4.9%. So not a good start for Silver.
https://twitter.com/Balgor11/status/1386434734696255489
http://web.archive.org/web/20210425213134/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
8/H
IHR is higher for nursing home residents, consistent with higher IFR for nursing home residents + older people due to more severe infections.
So IHR can be higher in older populations + lower elsewhere
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7493765/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.20.20178533v1.full-text
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1
IHR is higher for nursing home residents, consistent with higher IFR for nursing home residents + older people due to more severe infections.
So IHR can be higher in older populations + lower elsewhere
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7493765/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.20.20178533v1.full-text
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1
9/H
Yet under-estimating IHRs by excluding nursing home residents, leads to IHRs are at or above Silver's value of ~2%.
With the CDC's analysis, that further undermines Silver's IHR claim.
"2.1%"
https://ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/phh/2021/00000027/00000003/art00011
"2.7%"
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666991920000329?via%3Dihub
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934321000991
Yet under-estimating IHRs by excluding nursing home residents, leads to IHRs are at or above Silver's value of ~2%.
With the CDC's analysis, that further undermines Silver's IHR claim.
"2.1%"
https://ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/phh/2021/00000027/00000003/art00011
"2.7%"
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666991920000329?via%3Dihub
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934321000991
10/H
So where did @NateSilver538 go wrong?
It goes back to the New York study he relied on.
People who've read some of my IFR threads, especially those on Ioannidis, know what I'm about to say:
non-representative sampling.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1255499961791328262
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297691/
So where did @NateSilver538 go wrong?
It goes back to the New York study he relied on.
People who've read some of my IFR threads, especially those on Ioannidis, know what I'm about to say:
non-representative sampling.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1255499961791328262
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297691/
11/H
The study Silver relied on sampled only those in grocery stores. None of the IHR work cited in 7/H to 9/H did that.
So Silver likely over-estimated the number of people infected, + thus under-estimated IHR.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341303286272413696
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454696/
The study Silver relied on sampled only those in grocery stores. None of the IHR work cited in 7/H to 9/H did that.
So Silver likely over-estimated the number of people infected, + thus under-estimated IHR.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341303286272413696
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454696/
12/H
Silver messed this up because he's a non-expert.
What he should have done was run this by experts first, + listened when they corrected him.
Instead he stuck to his false claims despite correction, + used this to unfairly criticize experts.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12179
Silver messed this up because he's a non-expert.
What he should have done was run this by experts first, + listened when they corrected him.
Instead he stuck to his false claims despite correction, + used this to unfairly criticize experts.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12179
13/H
Silver often does this sort of "epistemic trespassing," where he contradicts experts in a topic, when the problem is that he doesn't understand the information that experts do.
For example, on climate models (after speaking to @ClimateOfGavin): https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1300530097468866561
Silver often does this sort of "epistemic trespassing," where he contradicts experts in a topic, when the problem is that he doesn't understand the information that experts do.
For example, on climate models (after speaking to @ClimateOfGavin): https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1300530097468866561
14/H
To modify @Potholer54T's rule:
If you're a non-expert disagreeing with the evidence-based consensus of scientific experts, then either:
1) experts know less than you
2) experts covered up what they know
3) experts know more than you
Start with #3
To modify @Potholer54T's rule:
If you're a non-expert disagreeing with the evidence-based consensus of scientific experts, then either:
1) experts know less than you
2) experts covered up what they know
3) experts know more than you
Start with #3
