[2006alum]

I totally agree that this paper, warts and all, needs to be made public. There isn't tons of other data out there, so we need to take what there is, if for no other reason than to identify problems in this study. Maybe there is more to it than that and the "reviewers comments" can be addressed, at least to some degree. If not, at least in can serve as an example of how not to do it.

IMHO, there is a brobdingnagian delta between "making data public" and needlessly extrapolating a non-credible IFR estimate and seeking widespread media coverage by giving interviews, press releases, etc., all broadcasting that this is not much worse than the flu, as several of the co-authors of this paper have been doing since at least mid March. IMHO, it's VERY hard to rebut an accusation of bad faith given how flawed this paper is.

[2006alum]

I totally agree that this paper, warts and all, needs to be made public. There isn't tons of other data out there, so we need to take what there is, if for no other reason than to identify problems in this study. Maybe there is more to it than that and the "reviewers comments" can be addressed, at least to some degree. If not, at least in can serve as an example of how not to do it.

IMHO, there is a brobdingnagian delta between "making data public" and needlessly extrapolating a non-credible IFR estimate and seeking widespread media coverage by giving interviews, press releases, etc., all broadcasting that this is not much worse than the flu, as several of the co-authors of this paper have been doing since at least mid March. IMHO, it's VERY hard to rebut an accusation of bad faith given how flawed this paper is.