[burger]

@Burger, if you have never been the victim of confirmation bias, you are a better man than I am.  Rather than attribute malice to Ioannidis' motives, maybe consider the possibility that a contrarian by nature got caught up a bit in his contrarianism, and accept that he was correct directionally; the ultimate IFR is substantially lower than the initial estimates from the WHO, though probably not as low as his estimates.

Come on, really?  It's a truism that all people suffer from confirmation bias.  But there's a chasm between that and publishing papers where one's biases influence the results.  The methods that Ioannidis is using have been roundly criticized by epidemiologists as biased and designed to produce a low estimate of IFR.

I don't attibute malice to Ioannidis (though see below).  I just think he's being a shitty scientist.  A good scientist does not let their personal bias influence their results.  Good scientists don't get "caught up" in anything.  They analyze the data in an objective manner and let it speak from themselves.  And really good scientists change their beliefs when the data shows that they were wrong.  I've had this experience a number of times.  

Your line about "directionally correct" is laughable.  There is no such thing.  Getting an accurate estimate of IFR is the goal here, not a direction.

I don't know what's in Ioannidis' heart, but he did go on TV multiple times to hype his studies and argue that the virus was not as big of a threat as others were suggesting.  Maybe he's just out for the self-promotion.  Maybe he really thinks the IFR is low.  Either way, he is massaging the numbers to artificially lower his IFR estimates, and that should not stand.

---

What would we do without twitter threads.......These twitter folks certainly have better credentials than  Ioannidis :  https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

Particularly Gideon M-K. One day he may just get that PHD from the Univ of Wollongong.  Until then he can write about how Red Bull’s are actually good for us......

Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who have no substantive arguments to make.  If you think those arguments in the twitter feeds are wrong, I'd like to hear why.  Otherwise, you're just deflecting.  You don't need a nobel prize to how when someone else has been fudging the numbers.

[burger]

@Burger, if you have never been the victim of confirmation bias, you are a better man than I am.  Rather than attribute malice to Ioannidis' motives, maybe consider the possibility that a contrarian by nature got caught up a bit in his contrarianism, and accept that he was correct directionally; the ultimate IFR is substantially lower than the initial estimates from the WHO, though probably not as low as his estimates.

Come on, really?  It's a truism that all people suffer from confirmation bias.  But there's a chasm between that and publishing papers where one's biases influence the results.  The methods that Ioannidis is using have been roundly criticized by epidemiologists as biased and designed to produce a low estimate of IFR.

I don't attibute malice to Ioannidis (though see below).  I just think he's being a shitty scientist.  A good scientist does not let their personal bias influence their results.  Good scientists don't get "caught up" in anything.  They analyze the data in an objective manner and let it speak from themselves.  And really good scientists change their beliefs when the data shows that they were wrong.  I've had this experience a number of times.  

Your line about "directionally correct" is laughable.  There is no such thing.  Getting an accurate estimate of IFR is the goal here, not a direction.

I don't know what's in Ioannidis' heart, but he did go on TV multiple times to hype his studies and argue that the virus was not as big of a threat as others were suggesting.  Maybe he's just out for the self-promotion.  Maybe he really thinks the IFR is low.  Either way, he is massaging the numbers to artificially lower his IFR estimates, and that should not stand.

---

What would we do without twitter threads.......These twitter folks certainly have better credentials than  Ioannidis :  https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

Particularly Gideon M-K. One day he may just get that PHD from the Univ of Wollongong.  Until then he can write about how Red Bull’s are actually good for us......

Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who have no substantive arguments to make.  If you think those arguments in the twitter feeds are wrong, I'd like to hear why.  Otherwise, you're just deflecting.  You don't need a nobel prize to how when someone else has been fudging the numbers.