4 ms·

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 ha

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?
      - allturtles 6y ago
        I don't think it's necessary to invoke 'corruption', just the same cognitive biases that plague everyone. Ioaniddis committed early (at least by March 2020) to the position that COVID is probably not that big a deal and everyone was likely overreacting. Once you do that it's hard to back down and natural to keep looking for evidence that you're right (and to try to discount evidence that you're wrong).
        xxxxxxx12 6y ago
        But you're trying to say that's he's downplaying the pandemic, when clearly he isn't. He's doing research that suggests some lower numbers than others. He's not the authority, and this is how science happens. An array of work is synthesized to come to conclusions. I don't believe he's invested in disproving the pandemic or something. It is clear to me that the reactions to him are disproportionate to things he's saying. His suggestions don't threaten anyone - clearly policy makers and the political class largely haven't listened to him. That people are threatened by him enough to start offhandedly discrediting him, suggests to me there's something deeper going on. I think society has invested so much into lockdown and all the related measure that any evidence that's critical causes cognitive dissonance. People would be unable to bear the thought that what we did was unfounded or misguided. The tell for me is that people are unable to allow for the existence of opposing arguments. Not only is Ioannidis wrong, he's obviously evil or dangerous, and must be discredited.
- allturtles 6y ago
  Here's a detailed critique of this paper: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1375942067990503429 https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/137594206799050342... Basically it sounds like Ioannidis extrapolated from a lot of statistically non-representative seroprevalence samples to make his case.

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?
    - allturtles 6y ago
      I don't think it's necessary to invoke 'corruption', just the same cognitive biases that plague everyone. Ioaniddis committed early (at least by March 2020) to the position that COVID is probably not that big a deal and everyone was likely overreacting. Once you do that it's hard to back down and natural to keep looking for evidence that you're right (and to try to discount evidence that you're wrong).
      - xxxxxxx12 6y ago
        But you're trying to say that's he's downplaying the pandemic, when clearly he isn't. He's doing research that suggests some lower numbers than others. He's not the authority, and this is how science happens. An array of work is synthesized to come to conclusions. I don't believe he's invested in disproving the pandemic or something. It is clear to me that the reactions to him are disproportionate to things he's saying. His suggestions don't threaten anyone - clearly policy makers and the political class largely haven't listened to him. That people are threatened by him enough to start offhandedly discrediting him, suggests to me there's something deeper going on. I think society has invested so much into lockdown and all the related measure that any evidence that's critical causes cognitive dissonance. People would be unable to bear the thought that what we did was unfounded or misguided. The tell for me is that people are unable to allow for the existence of opposing arguments. Not only is Ioannidis wrong, he's obviously evil or dangerous, and must be discredited.
allturtles 6y ago
Here's a detailed critique of this paper: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1375942067990503429 https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/137594206799050342... Basically it sounds like Ioannidis extrapolated from a lot of statistically non-representative seroprevalence samples to make his case.