back
1 comments
Ioannidis was the first major name to point out that the mortality rate for covid-19 was 0.25-0.5%, at a time when figures as high as 1 in 8 were being cited. Abundant evidence since then, including CDC's official estimates in the US, suggest he was correct. So, you know, beware, ideology can catch everyone. Even you.
The first estimates from Ioannidis from the flawed (in every possible way) California paper were less than 0.1% IFR. He later revised them to 0.16% IFR, not sure if subsequent "revision" (=admission of being wrong) was done afterwards. Bear in mind, that was his IFR estimate for March-April 2020, when a lot of treatment was being done wrong (=intubate early) and even steroids were not supposed to be used for treatment outside RCTs.

Meanwhile, the CFR at Diamond Princess was at 2.6%, so refrain from the idiocy "1 in 8 IFR estimates" as only completely uninformed people will fall for them.

To be fair, in the beginning the policy was to intubate and put on ventilator. This had a 97.2% chance of ending in death. So "1 in 8" was possibly true for the cases of people in the beginning who were both very susceptible to catching a respiratory disease in conjunction with 4 - or more - comorbidities.
The reasonableness of a statement should be based on how well it is supported at the time it is made, not whether it is later demonstrated to be correct.
overall mortality might have been 0.5, but for susceptible groups like old people it was way higher. also risk of nonfatal but serious covid complications is no joke. also secondary deaths from collapsing health care systems...