5 ms·

The example this article uses doesn't help drive the point. Ioannidis was heard, and the majority of the attacks on him came from outside the scientific communi

by tensor 6y ago

The example this article uses doesn't help drive the point. Ioannidis was heard, and the majority of the attacks on him came from outside the scientific community. Within the community science played out how it's supposed to. The paper was looked at critically and flaws in it's data uncovered and thus correctly discredited. Meanwhile, his hypothesis is still held by many prominent figures outside of the scientific community. So it's very hard to claim this is an example of valid ideas being at all squashed. Worse, in this case we have hard evidence of some pretty catastrophic results from this virus. So trying to argue that the overall outcome isn't going to be so bad is proven false by counter example. We already have situations that are bad enough to warrant extreme counter measures.

joe_the_user 6y ago
Lots of things about the Ioannidis paper. A) This was published as a research paper but how much of a research paper was it? As mentioned, it selectively and fairly shallowly looked at some data (the Diamond Princess) while wholly ignoring other data (South Korea) without even providing a strong justification for its choices. It was more like "an essay with scholarly footnotes". B) This article wasn't simply offered to scientific community. You can find a huge swath of mainstream media reports describing this paper and another large number of popular articles with by Ioannidis himself defending the positions he staked out in his article. This was essentially a media campaign. C). The particular position Ioannidis staked out was just one of a series of positions one can find staked by a variety of figures, some real scientists, some right wing ideologues, some somewhat in between. Again, if you look, a well financed media campaign. Below is a series of link I've cobbled together I've cobbled together as documentation of this: The American Institute for Economic Research (libertarian/right wing think tank) give it's of "significant" article: https://www.aier.org/article/vital-information-that-is-falling-through-the-cracks/ https://www.aier.org/article/vital-information-that-is-falli... Essentially a web of articles united by the need to avoid undue action on the virus (IE, not cost money). A nice article describing the similarity of Covid-denial and Climate-change-denial: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-doubters-follow-climate-denial-playbook/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-d... An article on the effort to spin the Santa Clara tests befor e they were even release: https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating-california-2019-bunk.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating... What's on with Ioannidis: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-... Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, another Stanford Connected "minimizer" https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-coronavirus-theory-that-informed-the-trump-administration https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-corona... A summary of several related minimizers, with a similar program: https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-about-the-importance-of-life-1833c714f08f https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-abou... Aljazeera gives a broader discussion, why real scientist would do this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-immunity-eugenics-market-200414104531234.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-i...
- op03 6y ago
  What is your point?
thu2111 6y ago
You're talking about the wrong document. The article discusses this essay by Ioannidis published on the same website: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... That isn't a scientific paper but rather an opinion piece. You're talking about the more recent paper he was involved with regarding immunity in a region of California. trying to argue that the overall outcome isn't going to be so bad is proven false by counter example. This might have made sense to say three weeks ago. The vast majority of places have now peaked already and have seen nothing worse than the flu. The strength of lockdown has made no difference whatsoever and there are good reasons to believe even having one at all may have no impact - bizarre but that's what some of the data is saying. In other words if you're going to engage in argument by counter-example that Ioannidis was wrong in his essay, you're going to lose. If we judge what happened purely by counting examples and counter-examples, lockdowns would appear totally insane.

by tensor 6y ago

joe_the_user 6y ago

Lots of things about the Ioannidis paper. A) This was published as a research paper but how much of a research paper was it? As mentioned, it selectively and fairly shallowly looked at some data (the Diamond Princess) while wholly ignoring other data (South Korea) without even providing a strong justification for its choices. It was more like "an essay with scholarly footnotes". B) This article wasn't simply offered to scientific community. You can find a huge swath of mainstream media reports describing this paper and another large number of popular articles with by Ioannidis himself defending the positions he staked out in his article. This was essentially a media campaign. C). The particular position Ioannidis staked out was just one of a series of positions one can find staked by a variety of figures, some real scientists, some right wing ideologues, some somewhat in between. Again, if you look, a well financed media campaign. Below is a series of link I've cobbled together I've cobbled together as documentation of this: The American Institute for Economic Research (libertarian/right wing think tank) give it's of "significant" article: https://www.aier.org/article/vital-information-that-is-falling-through-the-cracks/ https://www.aier.org/article/vital-information-that-is-falli... Essentially a web of articles united by the need to avoid undue action on the virus (IE, not cost money). A nice article describing the similarity of Covid-denial and Climate-change-denial: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-doubters-follow-climate-denial-playbook/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-d... An article on the effort to spin the Santa Clara tests befor e they were even release: https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating-california-2019-bunk.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating... What's on with Ioannidis: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-... Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, another Stanford Connected "minimizer" https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-coronavirus-theory-that-informed-the-trump-administration https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-corona... A summary of several related minimizers, with a similar program: https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-about-the-importance-of-life-1833c714f08f https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-abou... Aljazeera gives a broader discussion, why real scientist would do this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-immunity-eugenics-market-200414104531234.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-i...

op03 6y ago
What is your point?

thu2111 6y ago

You're talking about the wrong document. The article discusses this essay by Ioannidis published on the same website: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... That isn't a scientific paper but rather an opinion piece. You're talking about the more recent paper he was involved with regarding immunity in a region of California. trying to argue that the overall outcome isn't going to be so bad is proven false by counter example. This might have made sense to say three weeks ago. The vast majority of places have now peaked already and have seen nothing worse than the flu. The strength of lockdown has made no difference whatsoever and there are good reasons to believe even having one at all may have no impact - bizarre but that's what some of the data is saying. In other words if you're going to engage in argument by counter-example that Ioannidis was wrong in his essay, you're going to lose. If we judge what happened purely by counting examples and counter-examples, lockdowns would appear totally insane.