2. The other major flaw I pointed out was your choice of "IFR" as endpoint, which cannot be validly computed from this data base given its limitations and characteristics.
No legitimate scientific paper would estimate IFR like you do here because of the data limitations and issues pointed out above -- since you clearly are not getting mea…
2. The other major flaw I pointed out was your choice of "IFR" as endpoint, which cannot be validly computed from this data base given its limitations and characteristics.
No legitimate scientific paper would estimate IFR like you do here because of the data limitations and issues pointed out above -- since you clearly are not getting measures of cases and deaths on the same cohort of people — only the subset of cases actually obtained at the facility were captured in the data set, and the covid deaths were not limited to this subset of measured cases but includes covid deaths from cases occurring outside the facilities.
It is simply not possible to get a reasonable estimate of IFR (or more precisely you should really call it CFR) from the data in these database.
If a paper used the endpoint IFR defined as you did, computed from a database with these limitations, any peer review process would reject the paper outright because of the fact that you cannot get a valid measurement of that endpoint from data like these.
And this bias is not constant over time -- it is especially evident during times of massive covid surges in which many severe cases moved into the nursing homes -- precisely as happened in January 2021 at many locations in the USA.
3. There are many other flaws in your analyses I could critique, but I have not mentioned or explained them to you
You’re completely ignoring the comparison data among the same same facilities and then you went down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the conclusion. Why not take the time to research the data yourself? If you find it doesn’t match Steve’s conclusion perhaps he will discuss it with you.
Even if what he says is true... they brought infected dying patients into nursing homes while the healthy population had to be locked down? This is the argument? Incredible
2. The other major flaw I pointed out was your choice of "IFR" as endpoint, which cannot be validly computed from this data base given its limitations and characteristics.
No legitimate scientific paper would estimate IFR like you do here because of the data limitations and issues pointed out above -- since you clearly are not getting measures of cases and deaths on the same cohort of people — only the subset of cases actually obtained at the facility were captured in the data set, and the covid deaths were not limited to this subset of measured cases but includes covid deaths from cases occurring outside the facilities.
It is simply not possible to get a reasonable estimate of IFR (or more precisely you should really call it CFR) from the data in these database.
If a paper used the endpoint IFR defined as you did, computed from a database with these limitations, any peer review process would reject the paper outright because of the fact that you cannot get a valid measurement of that endpoint from data like these.
And this bias is not constant over time -- it is especially evident during times of massive covid surges in which many severe cases moved into the nursing homes -- precisely as happened in January 2021 at many locations in the USA.
3. There are many other flaws in your analyses I could critique, but I have not mentioned or explained them to you
You’re completely ignoring the comparison data among the same same facilities and then you went down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the conclusion. Why not take the time to research the data yourself? If you find it doesn’t match Steve’s conclusion perhaps he will discuss it with you.
Even if what he says is true... they brought infected dying patients into nursing homes while the healthy population had to be locked down? This is the argument? Incredible