4 ms·

How is reporting an IFR you disagree with the same as denying germ theory?

by nwah1 6y ago

joe_the_user 6y ago
I didn't say Ioannidis denied germ theory. What I implied was that he seems to put findings based on germ theory in the same category as the often/generally false/debatable findings of experimental psychology. Then he publishes findings based on completely selective uses of data, apparently with the attitude "nothing is true, I'll take the truth I like".
- nwah1 6y ago
  Did you read his California study? He sampled blood, and came up with a number. You are inferring a whole lot from that.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Yes, I recall the California study was marred by fairly obvious problems - it was looking for the infection rate of a population. The population was known to have a low infection rate and the test had a high false positive rate. He got a result that indicated a ~1-2% infection rate but which was compatible with 0% infection rate and thus was essentially worthless. He's push covid denialism in every conceivable forum open to him and aligned with overtly right wing ideological institutions like the Hoover Institute and the American Institute For Economic Research. This stuff has been gone over so much by now it has skidmarks on it but I'll dust off the file I keep this stuff: A nice article describing the similarity of Covid-denial and Climate-change-denial: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-doubters-follow-climate-denial-playbook/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-d... An article on the effort to spin the Santa Clara tests befor e they were even release: https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating-california-2019-bunk.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating... What's on with Ioannidis: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-... Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, another Stanford Connected "minimizer" https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-coronavirus-theory-that-informed-the-trump-administration https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-corona... A summary of several related minimizers, with a similar program: https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-about-the-importance-of-life-1833c714f08f https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-abou... Aljazeera gives a broader discussion, why real scientist would do this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-immunity-eugenics-market-200414104531234.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-i...
cma 6y ago
He first reported an IFR estimate that was lower than New York's total state-wide fatality rate (amongst all population, not just infected), and did it with a pretty explicit agenda if you read his opinion piece from before the study. Several articles revealed conflicts of interest behind the study such as the CEO of Jet Blue promising lab funding for someone who didn't want their name on the study if they would sign on, or something roughly along those lines (maybe with another layer of indirection).
- nwah1 6y ago
  I think, as mentioned here in the comments, his IFR estimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, but given that when he made his Santa Clara study, people were still worried about vastly higher fatality rates, he was still likely closer in absolute terms than many others. If he says the IFR is 0.27% and it is really 0.6% that is only off by 0.33. Anyone who thought it was 1.5% or 3% would've been off by a much higher amount.
  - cma 6y ago
    I'd have to go back and look, but his initial publication, hyped by him and team in the media before peer review, had the upper bound below 0.27% and below the then-current state-wide fatality rate of New York. > his IFR estimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, His early opinion piece I think opined it might be as low as 0.05%, when we had very good reason to believe that not to be the case: > That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies. > Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. 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... He was one of the big sources of credibility for people that extrapolated that to "just a normal flu". > If he says the IFR is 0.27% and it is really 0.6% that is only off by 0.33. Anyone who thought it was 1.5% or 3% would've been off by a much higher amount. Remember he was against most actions at the worst time for people being unprepared and hospitals potentially getting overwhelmed. IFR would increase with overwhelmed hospitals and without the time we've bought to develop better treatments and protocols. There was lots of fishy stuff going on with the later seropositivity study: Sample bias: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis...

How is reporting an IFR you disagree with the same as denying germ theory?

by nwah1 6y ago

How is reporting an IFR you disagree with the same as denying germ theory?

I didn't say Ioannidis denied germ theory. What I implied was that he seems to put findings based on germ theory in the same category as the often/generally false/debatable findings of experimental psychology. Then he publishes findings based on completely selective uses of data, apparently with the attitude "nothing is true, I'll take the truth I like".

nwah1 6y ago
Did you read his California study? He sampled blood, and came up with a number. You are inferring a whole lot from that.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Yes, I recall the California study was marred by fairly obvious problems - it was looking for the infection rate of a population. The population was known to have a low infection rate and the test had a high false positive rate. He got a result that indicated a ~1-2% infection rate but which was compatible with 0% infection rate and thus was essentially worthless. He's push covid denialism in every conceivable forum open to him and aligned with overtly right wing ideological institutions like the Hoover Institute and the American Institute For Economic Research. This stuff has been gone over so much by now it has skidmarks on it but I'll dust off the file I keep this stuff: A nice article describing the similarity of Covid-denial and Climate-change-denial: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-doubters-follow-climate-denial-playbook/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/04/coronavirus-d... An article on the effort to spin the Santa Clara tests befor e they were even release: https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating-california-2019-bunk.html https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating... What's on with Ioannidis: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-... Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, another Stanford Connected "minimizer" https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-coronavirus-theory-that-informed-the-trump-administration https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-corona... A summary of several related minimizers, with a similar program: https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-about-the-importance-of-life-1833c714f08f https://arcdigital.media/what-the-federalist-doesnt-get-abou... Aljazeera gives a broader discussion, why real scientist would do this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-immunity-eugenics-market-200414104531234.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/coronavirus-herd-i...

cma 6y ago

He first reported an IFR estimate that was lower than New York's total state-wide fatality rate (amongst all population, not just infected), and did it with a pretty explicit agenda if you read his opinion piece from before the study. Several articles revealed conflicts of interest behind the study such as the CEO of Jet Blue promising lab funding for someone who didn't want their name on the study if they would sign on, or something roughly along those lines (maybe with another layer of indirection).

nwah1 6y ago
I think, as mentioned here in the comments, his IFR estimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, but given that when he made his Santa Clara study, people were still worried about vastly higher fatality rates, he was still likely closer in absolute terms than many others. If he says the IFR is 0.27% and it is really 0.6% that is only off by 0.33. Anyone who thought it was 1.5% or 3% would've been off by a much higher amount.
- cma 6y ago
  I'd have to go back and look, but his initial publication, hyped by him and team in the media before peer review, had the upper bound below 0.27% and below the then-current state-wide fatality rate of New York. > his IFR estimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, His early opinion piece I think opined it might be as low as 0.05%, when we had very good reason to believe that not to be the case: > That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies. > Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. 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... He was one of the big sources of credibility for people that extrapolated that to "just a normal flu". > If he says the IFR is 0.27% and it is really 0.6% that is only off by 0.33. Anyone who thought it was 1.5% or 3% would've been off by a much higher amount. Remember he was against most actions at the worst time for people being unprepared and hospitals potentially getting overwhelmed. IFR would increase with overwhelmed hospitals and without the time we've bought to develop better treatments and protocols. There was lots of fishy stuff going on with the later seropositivity study: Sample bias: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis...