The paper you’re criticizing was upheld by many other subsequent papers, around the world, which have found similar IFR estimates. The methodological criticism

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