2 ms·
I disagree with your evaluation of this piece. I had previously defended a note by Ioannidis arguing that the the epidemic might not have been as severe as thou
by jhanschoo 6y ago
I disagree with your evaluation of this piece. I had previously defended a note by Ioannidis arguing that the the epidemic might not have been as severe as thought, when it was posted on HN.
The primary criticism of the article is obvious and correct: Ioannidis advocated for an unorthodox position in public policy without the evidence that would support his position.
- jhanschoo 6y agoReplying to add more nuance to my point: this unorthodox position is fine and useful for scientific discussion, but responsible public policy advocacy ought to be based on a consensus, especially when so much estimated risk is attached to the public policy decision. In addition, his correspondence always misrepresents what starting a lockdown is: a lockdown need not be necessarily long, yet Ioannidis constantly portrays it as a "long lockdown". Ideally, lockdowns happen at the early part of a poorly understood epidemic, and as soon as reliable evidence becomes available that the epidemic is not dangerous, they are quickly lifted.