5 ms·

This is a peer-reviewed article published by the World Health Organization, not a press release from an individual Stanford lab. Could you please enumerate you

This is a peer-reviewed article published by the World Health Organization, not a press release from an individual Stanford lab. Could you please enumerate your specific concerns with this study?

wonnage 6y ago
He references his own terrible seroprevalence study in this paper.
- irq11 6y ago
  The paper you’re criticizing was upheld by many other subsequent papers, around the world, which have found similar IFR estimates. The methodological criticisms of the paper that you’re making, while relevant, in no way invalidate the work. While the estimate may have been off by a factor of 2-3, overall, that’s well within the margin of error for a study of IFR on a small sample. This comment, downthread, cites a paper which finds similar estimates to Ionnadis’ original paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810409
NelsonMinar 6y ago
Plenty of other folks in this thread have done a great job linking to critiques or pointing out flaws. The part I'm contributing is the corrupting influence, the political agenda.
mkolodny 6y ago
My main concern with this study is that it uses reported Covid-19 deaths to infer the fatality rate. According to the paper, the fatality rates in the US are far higher than the rates in China and India. While the inferred fatality rate in the US is as high as ~1.3% (Louisiana), in many other places like China outside Wuhan and in India, the inferred death rate is close to 0.0%. I highly doubt that's actually the case. It seems much more likely that Covid-19 deaths have been under-reported in China and India. Anecdotally, my Pakistani friend called Covid-19 a "rich-person" disease because only rich people in Pakistan can afford a Covid-19 test. That may account for the lower number of reported Covid-19 deaths in poorer places.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Speaking of Pakistan, a friend who is a pediatrician there said that childhood vaccinations have declined by 50% since the start of the pandemic, possibly because parents are too scared to go to a medical facility to have it done out of concern of being infected by covid19. The secondary impacts from the pandemic and our response are going to start becoming more apparent.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    Suicides, hunger + starvation due, cancers and other diseases or illnesses not caught early, domestic abuse incidents, civil unrest (people get antsy when they have nothing to do). I'd say they are already pretty apparent, people are just fine to have their heads in the sand.
    - mrb 6y ago
      The only data I've seen (Peru) suggests that lockdowns significantly 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 homicides, suicides, traffic accidents, and other accidental deaths. I wonder if the same effect exists in other countries: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1314844027846500354 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/131484402784650035...
      - dimitrios1 6y ago
        I didn't mention homicides. Traffic accidents being down makes complete sense -- nobody is going anywhere. The CDC says there is an increase in suicide ideation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm The PAHO says the pandemic exacerbates suicide risk factors https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-9-2020-covid-19-pandemic-exacerbates-suicide-risk-factors https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-9-2020-covid-19-pandemic-exa... There are some other studies that I don't necessarily know what to make of that already say they are increasing.
        mrb 6y ago
mrb 6y ago
Ioannidis has been trying to publish this study for a while. He frequently updates the preprint on medrXiv and others reviewed it and criticized it extensively over the last few months. Here's a review by an actual epidemiologist pointing out specific flaws: https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344 https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344 In a nutshell he uses clearly inappropriate samples to estimate population prevalence, and inexplicably ignores multiple large high-quality samples that contradict his findings.

This is a peer-reviewed article published by the World Health Organization, not a press release from an individual Stanford lab. Could you please enumerate your specific concerns with this study?

wonnage 6y ago

He references his own terrible seroprevalence study in this paper.

irq11 6y ago
The paper you’re criticizing was upheld by many other subsequent papers, around the world, which have found similar IFR estimates. The methodological criticisms of the paper that you’re making, while relevant, in no way invalidate the work. While the estimate may have been off by a factor of 2-3, overall, that’s well within the margin of error for a study of IFR on a small sample. This comment, downthread, cites a paper which finds similar estimates to Ionnadis’ original paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24810409

NelsonMinar 6y ago

Plenty of other folks in this thread have done a great job linking to critiques or pointing out flaws. The part I'm contributing is the corrupting influence, the political agenda.

mkolodny 6y ago

My main concern with this study is that it uses reported Covid-19 deaths to infer the fatality rate. According to the paper, the fatality rates in the US are far higher than the rates in China and India. While the inferred fatality rate in the US is as high as ~1.3% (Louisiana), in many other places like China outside Wuhan and in India, the inferred death rate is close to 0.0%. I highly doubt that's actually the case. It seems much more likely that Covid-19 deaths have been under-reported in China and India. Anecdotally, my Pakistani friend called Covid-19 a "rich-person" disease because only rich people in Pakistan can afford a Covid-19 test. That may account for the lower number of reported Covid-19 deaths in poorer places.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Speaking of Pakistan, a friend who is a pediatrician there said that childhood vaccinations have declined by 50% since the start of the pandemic, possibly because parents are too scared to go to a medical facility to have it done out of concern of being infected by covid19. The secondary impacts from the pandemic and our response are going to start becoming more apparent.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  Suicides, hunger + starvation due, cancers and other diseases or illnesses not caught early, domestic abuse incidents, civil unrest (people get antsy when they have nothing to do). I'd say they are already pretty apparent, people are just fine to have their heads in the sand.
  - mrb 6y ago
    The only data I've seen (Peru) suggests that lockdowns significantly 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 homicides, suicides, traffic accidents, and other accidental deaths. I wonder if the same effect exists in other countries: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1314844027846500354 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/131484402784650035...
    - dimitrios1 6y ago
      I didn't mention homicides. Traffic accidents being down makes complete sense -- nobody is going anywhere. The CDC says there is an increase in suicide ideation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm The PAHO says the pandemic exacerbates suicide risk factors https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-9-2020-covid-19-pandemic-exacerbates-suicide-risk-factors https://www.paho.org/en/news/10-9-2020-covid-19-pandemic-exa... There are some other studies that I don't necessarily know what to make of that already say they are increasing.
      - mrb 6y ago

mrb 6y ago

Ioannidis has been trying to publish this study for a while. He frequently updates the preprint on medrXiv and others reviewed it and criticized it extensively over the last few months. Here's a review by an actual epidemiologist pointing out specific flaws: https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344 https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344 In a nutshell he uses clearly inappropriate samples to estimate population prevalence, and inexplicably ignores multiple large high-quality samples that contradict his findings.