I think one overlooked aspect of Prof Ioannidis' recent paper, aside from the personal attacks, is that it is already being predictably misused The paper says nothing about the 'true' IFR of COVID-19https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1376324032321220616 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK
also totally ignorant to the meaning of IFR. The paper said EU was prob 0.4% which is on the high end of estimates. Even yours.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamiebrough @GidMK
Mexico has already hit 0.25% with no end in sight....
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Czechia at 0.255 and Gibraltar at 0.27 not counting their excess deaths
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is Ioannidis' paper how is it in disagreement in any way whatsoever?pic.twitter.com/iuqUZyL6mB
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamiebrough @GidMK
Because we have exceeded that with only 30%-35% of pop infected at most..
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It doesn't matter.
@GidMK is talking about "true" IFR ignorant to the fact that it inversely correlates to every single quality of life metric outside of his bubble. Low IFR = people die young. The paper made no judgements about these deeper questions, just presented facts.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamiebrough @tskould
It's not like I published a paper on the age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 or something
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
So you and Ionnidis are both being equally disingenuous IFR has that leeway it doesn't make it right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Either that or you're just misrepresenting some arguments on Twitter I find that I don't really care either way
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.