4 ms·

> In an editorial on STAT published March 17, 2020, Ioannidis called the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic a "once-in-a-century evidence fiasco" and wrot

> In an editorial on STAT published March 17, 2020, Ioannidis called the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic a "once-in-a-century evidence fiasco" and wrote that lockdowns were likely an overreaction to unreliable data.[14] He estimated that the coronavirus could cause 10,000 U.S. deaths if it infected 1% of the U.S. population, and argued that more data was needed to determine if the virus would spread more.[28][5][14] The virus in fact eventually infected far more people, and would cause more than 600,000 deaths in the U.S.[29][28][5] Marc Lipsitch, Director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, objected to Ioannidis's characterization of the global response in a reply that was published on STAT the next day after Ioannidis's. > …In March 2021 Ioannidis estimated the global infection fatality rate from COVID-19 at 0.15%, in an article in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation where he also wrote unusual ad hominem criticisms against a co-author of a higher estimate who had criticized his work on Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

hoseja 5y ago
You're a second person trying to cancel the author, under such an article. Funny.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  I'm not trying to "cancel" anyone. I just posted an excerpt from and link to wikipedia, I didn't even provide a judgement. (I also haven't downvoted anyone's comment in this thread because I disagreed with it, not even yours, which perhaps could be called an attempt to 'cancel' the comment...) I thought he made some good points in the OP, and also some weird points. I think science as actually practiced is a human endeavor in which at it's best the humans involved try to use systems and procedures to neutralize the inevitable biases and interests of the individual humans involved, but this is a goal that we (at best, and we're not always at our best, including lately) approach asymptotically. I think this understanding is compatible with Ioannidis own framework for understanding science, and he'd largely agree with it. I think this perspective tells us that it's not irrelevant to look at the personal context and interests of someone participating in the discourse with an opinion piece like this (unlike Ioannidis famous "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", this piece is an opinion piece, not the report of scientific research. It's true that I could have included the context that he's the author of that well-known-on-HN piece too; I did link to the wikipedia article where anyone can read more).
- watwut 5y ago
  Claim that "this author produced some crappy science under pandemic" is not a cancelling. Especially since it is under article about "scientific norms during pandemic".
- epistasis 5y ago
  Though the term "cancel" is need the concept is not and has been going on in science since it's very beginning. And if there were ever a good case for it, now is the time. Unfortunately, fame is a powerful protectant against dishonest behavior in science. See also RA Fisher and his bad analysis of smoking and cancer. Fisher was famous enough that his celebrity overrode his terrible analysis during one of the most crucial questions of his time.
- N1H1L 5y ago
  Pointing out legitimate flaws in someone's work is not canceling.
AndrewBissell 5y ago
0.15% turned out to be a lot closer to the real number (something like 0.3% or 0.4%) than the IHME models used to justify lockdowns (which were putting out numbers like 3.4% around the same time), but somehow no one ever brings up their wildly off-base forecasts as a reason to dismiss everything they have to say in perpetuity.
- watwut 5y ago
  Because that was "worst case scenario" model, in order to anger "worst case scenario estimation" question.
- jsnell 5y ago
  0.3% clearly can't be the real IFR, given there are places with significantly higher PFRs. E.g. 0.6% of the entire population of Peru died. Please show a source for that claim about a 3.4% IFR in the IHME. As far as I know, nobody serious ever made such a claim. The serious IFR estimates from very early on were roughly 1% plus minus a little (e.g. the Imperial models were assuming a 0.9% IFR), and it looks like those initial estimates were spot on. The exception to that is Ioannidis, who early on was claiming that the IFR would be two orders of magnitude lower than that. He predicted there would be only 10k dead in the US when there were 120 deaths. Three weeks later, there were 20k. He staked his reputation on absurd claims, and has been doubling down on borderling fraudulent research since then to support those initial mistakes.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    The actually experienced IFR/CFR depends on availability and quality of medical care, right? I don't have a cite, but I feel like I remember people suggesting (whether based on something other than their imagination I don't recall) up to 5% IFR if no medical care was received, perhaps because medical system had collapsed under demand? But in general of course what you say seems right, and I appreciate your well-informed discussion contribution, thanks.
native_samples 5y ago
The Wikipedia page is a hit job. I looked at these supposedly "ad hominem" criticisms. Basically they are about a guy on Twitter ("Health Nerd") and boil down to these claims: - He calls himself an epidemiologist but is actually a student (no PhD) who has barely published anything. - The guy's criticisms of Ioannidis' work aren't technically valid. - He is a columnist at the "American Council of Science and Health" but doesn't report that as a conflict of interest. Despite this, Ioannidis goes out of his way to say nice things about the tweeter, like "The Twitter account has interesting, smart content with strong advocacy, often supporting worthy causes". This dispute seems fairly typical of the science world. Things are in one moment totally unacceptable and terrible, like "armchair epidemiologists" commenting on things they aren't specialists in, and in the next moment pointing out some rando on Twitter isn't a qualified epidemiologist is "unusual" and an unacceptable ad hominem attack.

hoseja 5y ago

You're a second person trying to cancel the author, under such an article. Funny.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jrochkind1 5y ago
I'm not trying to "cancel" anyone. I just posted an excerpt from and link to wikipedia, I didn't even provide a judgement. (I also haven't downvoted anyone's comment in this thread because I disagreed with it, not even yours, which perhaps could be called an attempt to 'cancel' the comment...) I thought he made some good points in the OP, and also some weird points. I think science as actually practiced is a human endeavor in which at it's best the humans involved try to use systems and procedures to neutralize the inevitable biases and interests of the individual humans involved, but this is a goal that we (at best, and we're not always at our best, including lately) approach asymptotically. I think this understanding is compatible with Ioannidis own framework for understanding science, and he'd largely agree with it. I think this perspective tells us that it's not irrelevant to look at the personal context and interests of someone participating in the discourse with an opinion piece like this (unlike Ioannidis famous "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", this piece is an opinion piece, not the report of scientific research. It's true that I could have included the context that he's the author of that well-known-on-HN piece too; I did link to the wikipedia article where anyone can read more).
watwut 5y ago
Claim that "this author produced some crappy science under pandemic" is not a cancelling. Especially since it is under article about "scientific norms during pandemic".
epistasis 5y ago
Though the term "cancel" is need the concept is not and has been going on in science since it's very beginning. And if there were ever a good case for it, now is the time. Unfortunately, fame is a powerful protectant against dishonest behavior in science. See also RA Fisher and his bad analysis of smoking and cancer. Fisher was famous enough that his celebrity overrode his terrible analysis during one of the most crucial questions of his time.
N1H1L 5y ago
Pointing out legitimate flaws in someone's work is not canceling.

AndrewBissell 5y ago

0.15% turned out to be a lot closer to the real number (something like 0.3% or 0.4%) than the IHME models used to justify lockdowns (which were putting out numbers like 3.4% around the same time), but somehow no one ever brings up their wildly off-base forecasts as a reason to dismiss everything they have to say in perpetuity.

watwut 5y ago
Because that was "worst case scenario" model, in order to anger "worst case scenario estimation" question.
jsnell 5y ago
0.3% clearly can't be the real IFR, given there are places with significantly higher PFRs. E.g. 0.6% of the entire population of Peru died. Please show a source for that claim about a 3.4% IFR in the IHME. As far as I know, nobody serious ever made such a claim. The serious IFR estimates from very early on were roughly 1% plus minus a little (e.g. the Imperial models were assuming a 0.9% IFR), and it looks like those initial estimates were spot on. The exception to that is Ioannidis, who early on was claiming that the IFR would be two orders of magnitude lower than that. He predicted there would be only 10k dead in the US when there were 120 deaths. Three weeks later, there were 20k. He staked his reputation on absurd claims, and has been doubling down on borderling fraudulent research since then to support those initial mistakes.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  The actually experienced IFR/CFR depends on availability and quality of medical care, right? I don't have a cite, but I feel like I remember people suggesting (whether based on something other than their imagination I don't recall) up to 5% IFR if no medical care was received, perhaps because medical system had collapsed under demand? But in general of course what you say seems right, and I appreciate your well-informed discussion contribution, thanks.

native_samples 5y ago

The Wikipedia page is a hit job. I looked at these supposedly "ad hominem" criticisms. Basically they are about a guy on Twitter ("Health Nerd") and boil down to these claims: - He calls himself an epidemiologist but is actually a student (no PhD) who has barely published anything. - The guy's criticisms of Ioannidis' work aren't technically valid. - He is a columnist at the "American Council of Science and Health" but doesn't report that as a conflict of interest. Despite this, Ioannidis goes out of his way to say nice things about the tweeter, like "The Twitter account has interesting, smart content with strong advocacy, often supporting worthy causes". This dispute seems fairly typical of the science world. Things are in one moment totally unacceptable and terrible, like "armchair epidemiologists" commenting on things they aren't specialists in, and in the next moment pointing out some rando on Twitter isn't a qualified epidemiologist is "unusual" and an unacceptable ad hominem attack.