4 ms·

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

by 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...

by nwah1 6y ago

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...