3 ms·

Versus the actual trash used by the Imperial College that was used to justify draconian measures?? Early in the pandemic as well? Hmm Remind me again what were

Versus the actual trash used by the Imperial College that was used to justify draconian measures?? Early in the pandemic as well? Hmm Remind me again what were the deaths predicted?

robocat 4y ago
I’m not sure what your point is. Does that somehow justify Ioannidis writing influential science papers that are bullshit science? Here is a proper 20-20 hindsight analysis: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... mostly about this paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v... The numbers he found were completely inconsistent with other well known numbers at the time. He didn’t shit-test his analysis against reality, instead he published bullshit science, ironically enough given his most cited paper. This is the analysis I previously referred to that was shit: 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... I recall he ignored conflicting information from other sources[1], he was jumping to conclusions based on the thin Diamond Princess information, and I felt he was politically advocating for more scientific delay. Resulting in articles like: https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indicates-were-overreacting-to-coronavirus https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indic... He doubled down. Was badly wrong. Unfortunately it is still a political topic, especially in the US, so it is hard to have a sensible conversation about it. [1] his article was on the 17th March and the WaPo article I referenced talked about Berano on the 23rd March - I haven’t checked whether he should have known the Berano facts publically. https://archive.ph/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/why-is-coronavirus-so-bad-in-italy/2020/03/23/90d306d0-6c85-11ea-a156-0048b62cdb51_story.html https://archive.ph/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/euro... The point is that Ioannidis had a pattern of behaviour of writing obviously biased rubbish during that time.

Versus the actual trash used by the Imperial College that was used to justify draconian measures?? Early in the pandemic as well? Hmm Remind me again what were the deaths predicted?

robocat 4y ago

I’m not sure what your point is. Does that somehow justify Ioannidis writing influential science papers that are bullshit science? Here is a proper 20-20 hindsight analysis: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... mostly about this paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v... The numbers he found were completely inconsistent with other well known numbers at the time. He didn’t shit-test his analysis against reality, instead he published bullshit science, ironically enough given his most cited paper. This is the analysis I previously referred to that was shit: 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... I recall he ignored conflicting information from other sources[1], he was jumping to conclusions based on the thin Diamond Princess information, and I felt he was politically advocating for more scientific delay. Resulting in articles like: https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indicates-were-overreacting-to-coronavirus https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indic... He doubled down. Was badly wrong. Unfortunately it is still a political topic, especially in the US, so it is hard to have a sensible conversation about it. [1] his article was on the 17th March and the WaPo article I referenced talked about Berano on the 23rd March - I haven’t checked whether he should have known the Berano facts publically. https://archive.ph/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/why-is-coronavirus-so-bad-in-italy/2020/03/23/90d306d0-6c85-11ea-a156-0048b62cdb51_story.html https://archive.ph/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/euro... The point is that Ioannidis had a pattern of behaviour of writing obviously biased rubbish during that time.