Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures(onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13222
5 comments
Two months ago, this was posted here and many supported the idea that the measures were an "overreaction".
Reading it now with hindsight, the linked article in itself still seems pretty reasonable.
In a world full of dumb people, you might expect a media overreaction to something like this.
A whole bunch of people instead just going the opposite way and calling it all a hoax seems a bit harder to predict. And in the context of that insanity his words do seem to be supporting the deniers, but I'm guessing their points are generally less nuanced than "we don't have much gold standard randomised trial evidence for many of these interventions, and we'd be in a better position to plan if we did".
In a world full of dumb people, you might expect a media overreaction to something like this.
A whole bunch of people instead just going the opposite way and calling it all a hoax seems a bit harder to predict. And in the context of that insanity his words do seem to be supporting the deniers, but I'm guessing their points are generally less nuanced than "we don't have much gold standard randomised trial evidence for many of these interventions, and we'd be in a better position to plan if we did".
What is your point? Many still believe the measures taken were an overreaction.
Many more believe now that measures taken were an overreaction even though data from Spain random testing indicates that 5% of population there already got Covid, which combined with their number of dead gives over 1% mortality which is nothing like the flu.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/study-5-of-spanish-populatio...
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/study-5-of-spanish-populatio...
With hindsight, Ioannidis looks like an even greater fool.