Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Oct. 12, 2020

Created

Fri Apr 24 16:30:13 +0000 2020

Likes

139

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

In short: these antibody tests are valuable exercises. But they could wind up reasonably far from the mark *in either direction* from the true rates of infection. Read the fine print. The better studies may get you in the ballpark but don't assume they're especially precise. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted April 24, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

So this gets tricky. If you hear an antibody test finds that 20% of people had COVID-19, that could be an underestimate because of lags. But if you hear it implies a 0.7% fatality rate, that may *not* be an underestimate since both antibody tests *and* deaths lag infection. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted April 24, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

(Note: deleted a tweet in this thread referring to "specificity" since my brain always confuses "sensitivity" and "specificity". I'll stick with "false positive rate" and "false negative rate" going forward.) https://t.co/3pfaxkX3gq — PolitiTweet.org

Posted April 24, 2020 Hibernated