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-fia

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.