3 ms·

Ioannidis was celebrated in the past when he called out how scientists published nonsense in prior peer-reviewed papers Why Most Published Research Findings Ar

Ioannidis was celebrated in the past when he called out how scientists published nonsense in prior peer-reviewed papers Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... Now that he calls out the ongoing groupthink that leads to counterproductive recommendations and practices he is ... shall we say ... less than positively looked upon. it will take ten years for us to say, I guess Ioannidis was right after all people always say you have to think outside the box, what they don't tell you that there may be a big price to pay for that.

zzleeper 6y ago
Ioannidis was not attacked because of his skepticism. He was attacked because of a paper with quite controversial methods, and which violated a few ethic rules: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-...
kspacewalk2 6y ago
>it will take ten years for us to say, I guess Ioannidis was right after all Sadly I doubt that more and more. Locking down is a win-win if what you care about is not admitting a costly mistake. Its principal claim that it will save far more lives than it costs is essentially unfalsifiable to people who aren't willing to trust statistics, because lives lost to COVID are immediate and easily countable^, whereas someone dying of cancer in May 2021 because they did not get a diagnostic test in April 2020 but instead had to wait till July can just as easily be spun as being "death due to the virus" as "death due to the lockdown". Pointy-headed epidemiologists will publish some papers a few years from now and tease out whether the lockdown made sense (or rather, where it made sense and for how long) using mortality statistics and measures like Disability Adjusted Life Years (which make impressionable people uncomfortable due to the implicit suggestion that we should weigh a lost life by how many years of life were left to live). Will politicians admit failure as a result, if the studies suggest they locked down far too aggressively and for far too long? Never gonna happen. ^ or so the media thinks, i.e. is death with COVID = death from COVID?
SkyMarshal 6y ago
Ioannidis is less than positively looked upon because his study was flawed. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-coronavirus-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-co... Quite the irony given his expertise.
coldtea 6y ago
Actually he was accused of doing the exact same sloppy, misleading, politically/ideologically motivated "research" on the subject, of the kind that he used to criticize in his meta-studies...

zzleeper 6y ago

Ioannidis was not attacked because of his skepticism. He was attacked because of a paper with quite controversial methods, and which violated a few ethic rules: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-...

kspacewalk2 6y ago

>it will take ten years for us to say, I guess Ioannidis was right after all Sadly I doubt that more and more. Locking down is a win-win if what you care about is not admitting a costly mistake. Its principal claim that it will save far more lives than it costs is essentially unfalsifiable to people who aren't willing to trust statistics, because lives lost to COVID are immediate and easily countable^, whereas someone dying of cancer in May 2021 because they did not get a diagnostic test in April 2020 but instead had to wait till July can just as easily be spun as being "death due to the virus" as "death due to the lockdown". Pointy-headed epidemiologists will publish some papers a few years from now and tease out whether the lockdown made sense (or rather, where it made sense and for how long) using mortality statistics and measures like Disability Adjusted Life Years (which make impressionable people uncomfortable due to the implicit suggestion that we should weigh a lost life by how many years of life were left to live). Will politicians admit failure as a result, if the studies suggest they locked down far too aggressively and for far too long? Never gonna happen. ^ or so the media thinks, i.e. is death with COVID = death from COVID?

SkyMarshal 6y ago

Ioannidis is less than positively looked upon because his study was flawed. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-coronavirus-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-co... Quite the irony given his expertise.

coldtea 6y ago

Actually he was accused of doing the exact same sloppy, misleading, politically/ideologically motivated "research" on the subject, of the kind that he used to criticize in his meta-studies...