[2006alum]

IMHO, there is a of immense proportions 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.

You underestimate the power of hubris and stupidity :-). Seriously, just because you (and others) believe the conclusions are flawed why do you ipso facto believe those that disagree with you are operating in "bad faith"?   Granted, it may be the authors are "bad" people, I really don't know. But until I have concrete evidence otherwise, I am willing to accept the idea they are honest in intent but wrong in some conclusions. To do otherwise is ad hominem, IMHO.

Because three of the co-authors were on record in mid-March saying this was no worse than the flu and social distancing was an overreaction. They do a study that has serious methodology flaws they do not even attempt to address in their estimates, and those estimates are used to extrapolate a finding (an IFR of .12%) that seems to contradict real world lived experience in places like NYC, Italy, and Spain, while failing to disclose that an equally possible finding within their own confidence intervals is a dataset of exclusively false positives.

No one seems to have explained to me why they made no effort to adjust for the self-selection in sample, nor why didn't have a topline result noting that they could not at the 95% confidence level exclude a null hypothesis that there was effectively no non-documented community spread.

The only answer I can reach is that they are acting in bad faith. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary.

[2006alum]

IMHO, there is a of immense proportions 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.

You underestimate the power of hubris and stupidity :-). Seriously, just because you (and others) believe the conclusions are flawed why do you ipso facto believe those that disagree with you are operating in "bad faith"?   Granted, it may be the authors are "bad" people, I really don't know. But until I have concrete evidence otherwise, I am willing to accept the idea they are honest in intent but wrong in some conclusions. To do otherwise is ad hominem, IMHO.

Because three of the co-authors were on record in mid-March saying this was no worse than the flu and social distancing was an overreaction. They do a study that has serious methodology flaws they do not even attempt to address in their estimates, and those estimates are used to extrapolate a finding (an IFR of .12%) that seems to contradict real world lived experience in places like NYC, Italy, and Spain, while failing to disclose that an equally possible finding within their own confidence intervals is a dataset of exclusively false positives.

No one seems to have explained to me why they made no effort to adjust for the self-selection in sample, nor why didn't have a topline result noting that they could not at the 95% confidence level exclude a null hypothesis that there was effectively no non-documented community spread.

The only answer I can reach is that they are acting in bad faith. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary.