Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
To be fair, there is a continuum of credibility between red-top conspiracy wailing and a peer reviewed paper, and an academic paper placed on a pre-press server like Arxiv is nearer the latter end of that continuum than the former. Random nut jobs don't get access to such services, and the fact that it's there means it is worth consideration. "one Prof of Stats' views" is unduly dismissive.
|
I'm not being dismissive, I'm trying to give it appropriate weight (as opposed to peer-reviewed papers).
However, I don't think people (and by people, I mean the red-tops that reported on the paper), actually read the
summary fully - it states
Quote:
|
the distribution of times from disease onset to death for fatal cases, to infer the time course of fatal infections from the subsequent death data.
|
Quote:
|
Using the distribution of times from disease onset to death, it is possible to extend the model to infer the time course of fatal infections required to produce the later deaths.
|
The paper is only discussing infections that lead to deaths, not all infections - as treatment(s) improved and the NHS learned how to cope with the severe effects of the virus, deaths lessened (not overal infection rates).
