4 ms·

> In our first interview, the Professor speculated that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) could be as low as 0.1% and that over 50% of people would shortly be r

> In our first interview, the Professor speculated that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) could be as low as 0.1% and that over 50% of people would shortly be revealed to have already had the virus once antibody testing became widespread. > We now know that the IFR for countries like the UK and Sweden is between 0.5% and 0.9% and that antibody testing has persistently revealed disappointingly small prevalence. Even now, after tens of millions of people have had Covid in the UK and a further 32 million have been vaccinated, antibodies are only estimated to be present in 55% of people. Everyone is operating with only partial information in a live situation like this, and has to make guesses, predictions, and decisions based on the data they have AND how much they trust that science and its correctness, however well intentioned it might be. Those that had poor outcomes will be judged to have done too little and those with good outcomes will be judged to have gone too far, when the reality is that few will have acted truly unreasonably as they try to balance health, economy, social concerns, etc. With respect to IFR, there has been a lot of variation over time and between locations. However the most recent meta study suggests a global IFR of 0.15% (compared to seasonal flu IFR of 0.1%): https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-puts-covid-infection-fatality-rate-at-only-0.15-percent https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-puts-covid-infec...

bagacrap 6y ago
sorry but that study reeks of bs. It relies heavily on estimates extrapolated from Western countries to determine the spread of the virus, concluding that 2B have contracted the disease, but also relies on the official death toll of ~3M worldwide, to get that IFR figure. Given that the official death toll in China is still <5k, these calculations are obviously cooked. The paper is not reviewed and has no co authors, and the sole author has a history of playing down the pandemic, while failing to disclose conflicts of interest.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  All IFRs are estimates. We don’t know the true infection rates in an absolute sense so it has to be estimated by definition. Official death tolls are also all we have to go on, and allegations of incorrectness must be proven or cast aside as conspiracy theories, right? “Obviously cooked” isn’t exactly a convincing argument. > the sole author has a history of playing down the pandemic I’m curious why this matters. Do you also note that other people are “playing up” the pandemic? This feels like an ad hominem dismissal of good content rather than a convincing argument - at least for me. The author is a Professor at the Stanford school of medicine and also a professor of statistics. He has also worked extensively on meta research so it’s not surprising that his claims go against others’ claims at times. That doesn’t make him wrong - rather it makes him a specialist in conducting this exact meta study. We don’t have to rely on his authority solely, but to the extent you want to bring up the author, it seems like he is well suited for this study. > while failing to disclose conflicts of interest What conflict of interest are you alleging here? Without concrete details and evidence, this feels like an attempt at character assassination. Why not just discuss the underlying content directly and avoid the arguments based on the person?
  - xxxxxxx12 6y ago
    > The author is a Professor at the Stanford school of medicine and also a professor of statistics. Most people don't care. They selectively pick the academics that put out the most alarmist and pessimistic predictions (often predicated on the same assumption-packed models that generate results in line with those assumptions, then present the results as evidence of the original assumptions). Ioaniddis is smeared with allegations about funding, etc. Meanwhile people like vaccine manufacturers, big pharma, etc. are never critically examined as potentially conflict-ridden organizations funding their own trials with scientists on their payroll. Same goes to the epidemiologists and others that stand to benefit from producing the most emotion-provoking results in order to secure their grants. You see it with the censoring of the panels hosted by Gov. DeSantis. These aren't conspiracy theorists. They're credentialed academics and researchers with established careers. The idea that those recordings of academics, discussing their subject matter, hosted on YouTube or wherever, are dangerous is patently absurd.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      > Ioaniddis is smeared with allegations about funding I mean, pretty fairly, to be honest. I <3 Ioaniddis until this pandemic, but I think he's been dead wrong on it, and should go back to giving out about the quality of published papers (where he's been very, very right).
      - xxxxxxx12 6y ago
        > and should go back to giving out about the quality of published papers Do you ever consider that he hasn't changed and you have during the pandemic? I realize that could come off as accusatory, but I've seen this said a bunch. And it seems like it never occurs to people that maybe they're so invested in a certain viewpoint that they've given up the meta-cognition to consider something they've convinced themselves to be wrong. What's more likely: Ioaniddis, as an academic with an extensive and well-respected career and publication history, has suddenly been corrupted, or there are large cultural and cognitive biases that have been activated by a natural disaster?

bagacrap 6y ago

sorry but that study reeks of bs. It relies heavily on estimates extrapolated from Western countries to determine the spread of the virus, concluding that 2B have contracted the disease, but also relies on the official death toll of ~3M worldwide, to get that IFR figure. Given that the official death toll in China is still <5k, these calculations are obviously cooked. The paper is not reviewed and has no co authors, and the sole author has a history of playing down the pandemic, while failing to disclose conflicts of interest.

throwawaysea 6y ago
All IFRs are estimates. We don’t know the true infection rates in an absolute sense so it has to be estimated by definition. Official death tolls are also all we have to go on, and allegations of incorrectness must be proven or cast aside as conspiracy theories, right? “Obviously cooked” isn’t exactly a convincing argument. > the sole author has a history of playing down the pandemic I’m curious why this matters. Do you also note that other people are “playing up” the pandemic? This feels like an ad hominem dismissal of good content rather than a convincing argument - at least for me. The author is a Professor at the Stanford school of medicine and also a professor of statistics. He has also worked extensively on meta research so it’s not surprising that his claims go against others’ claims at times. That doesn’t make him wrong - rather it makes him a specialist in conducting this exact meta study. We don’t have to rely on his authority solely, but to the extent you want to bring up the author, it seems like he is well suited for this study. > while failing to disclose conflicts of interest What conflict of interest are you alleging here? Without concrete details and evidence, this feels like an attempt at character assassination. Why not just discuss the underlying content directly and avoid the arguments based on the person?
- xxxxxxx12 6y ago
  > The author is a Professor at the Stanford school of medicine and also a professor of statistics. Most people don't care. They selectively pick the academics that put out the most alarmist and pessimistic predictions (often predicated on the same assumption-packed models that generate results in line with those assumptions, then present the results as evidence of the original assumptions). Ioaniddis is smeared with allegations about funding, etc. Meanwhile people like vaccine manufacturers, big pharma, etc. are never critically examined as potentially conflict-ridden organizations funding their own trials with scientists on their payroll. Same goes to the epidemiologists and others that stand to benefit from producing the most emotion-provoking results in order to secure their grants. You see it with the censoring of the panels hosted by Gov. DeSantis. These aren't conspiracy theorists. They're credentialed academics and researchers with established careers. The idea that those recordings of academics, discussing their subject matter, hosted on YouTube or wherever, are dangerous is patently absurd.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    > Ioaniddis is smeared with allegations about funding I mean, pretty fairly, to be honest. I <3 Ioaniddis until this pandemic, but I think he's been dead wrong on it, and should go back to giving out about the quality of published papers (where he's been very, very right).
    - xxxxxxx12 6y ago
      > and should go back to giving out about the quality of published papers Do you ever consider that he hasn't changed and you have during the pandemic? I realize that could come off as accusatory, but I've seen this said a bunch. And it seems like it never occurs to people that maybe they're so invested in a certain viewpoint that they've given up the meta-cognition to consider something they've convinced themselves to be wrong. What's more likely: Ioaniddis, as an academic with an extensive and well-respected career and publication history, has suddenly been corrupted, or there are large cultural and cognitive biases that have been activated by a natural disaster?