[disgruntledphd2]

> I realize that could come off as accusatory, but I've seen this said a bunch. And it seems like it never occurs to people that maybe they're so invested in a certain viewpoint that they've given up the meta-cognition to consider something they've convinced themselves to be wrong.

He ignores the standard methods of collection and analysis of systematic reviews and meta-anlyses (some of which were authored by him) and uses ridiculous numbers like those in the OP of this thread to make it seem like Covid is less dangerous than it is.

Don't get me wrong, I've been estimating 0.5-1.5% IFR for this for well over a year now (all the CFR's last year were so misleading), and the general meta-scientific point that we didn't know enough to be locking down was entirely true.

But his sampling study was hot garbage, and he's gotten himself into a bunch of trouble for no good reason.

> Do you ever consider that he hasn't changed and you have during the pandemic?

Honestly, probably not. But that's an interesting suggestion, and I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this. Because maybe I have, and don't notice (to be fair, the birth of my first child has had a much greater impact on my life than the pandemic).