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 sourc

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.