As mentioned in a comment above, one of the (pretty highly credentialed) authors of this preprint has written two papers on the Diamond Princess, and so, excuse the appeal to authority, but any argument against this paper based on Diamond Princess doesn’t seem likely to invalidate conclusions of this preprint .
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that! Makes me upshift that I was wrong, but also upshift that one author is responsible for several studies that I found dubious.
I looked through his list of publications and it seems he finished 2 papers on the prevalence of asymptomatic cases on the Diamond princess already (but not on fatality rates from there!). And the second one reports a point estimate that is outside the 95% confidence interval of the first paper, yet I don’t see any addendum to the first paper. This seems kind of odd?
And that airborn-ish transmission is highly likely.
I don’t have strong views on that. The only thing I feel confident about is that an IFR of below 0.5% seems extremely implausible.
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that! Makes me upshift that I was wrong, but also upshift that one author is responsible for several studies that I found dubious.
I looked through his list of publications and it seems he finished 2 papers on the prevalence of asymptomatic cases on the Diamond princess already (but not on fatality rates from there!). And the second one reports a point estimate that is outside the 95% confidence interval of the first paper, yet I don’t see any addendum to the first paper. This seems kind of odd?
I don’t have strong views on that. The only thing I feel confident about is that an IFR of below 0.5% seems extremely implausible.