3 ms·
Both the LA and Stanford studies are junk. Easily explained by false positives inherent to the test. Stuff like this is why pre-print services can have disast
by sjg007 7y ago
Both the LA and Stanford studies are junk. Easily explained by false positives inherent to the test. Stuff like this is why pre-print services can have disastrous consequences.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
- microdrum 7y agoSo, in your ideal world, we would never do serosurveys for surveillance of low incidence diseases, right? Any Type 1 error is too much Type 1 error, right? I'm sorry that literally all of the seroprevalence data hurt your priors. But the virus is widespread, not very deadly, and people are going to go back to work soon. You can stay home. You will be safe at home.
- VyperCard 7y agoNo need to be condescending. This is hacker news not Reddit.
- DeonPenny 7y agoThat article is junk. Even the fact that it quotes Santa Claras deaths at 100 deaths is wrong because it was only 70 at the time. This entire blog is rife with mathematical and statistical errors.