[javagram]

1. The article is by John Ioannadis who has a history of publishing studies/analysis arguing for a lower COVID-19 IFR than other scientists.

2. Most arguments for “mandates” aren’t made in reference to numbers anyway, or reference long COVID, MIS-C, etc rather than fatality rate.

3. This article is for pre-vaccine IFR (i.e. 2020 COVID, the extinct Wuhan strain) and most current arguments reference newer variants which are alleged to be more dangerous. Delta actually was significantly more dangerous although omicron variants are probably back to the original 2020 IFR in the unvaccinated.

[yucky]

   > 1. The article is by John Ioannadis who has a history of publishing studies/analysis arguing for a lower COVID-19 IFR than other scientists.

Starting off with an ad hominem almost made me completely dismiss the rest of your post, assuming you started with your best point. If Hitler himself recommended that we should eat more vegetables, I wouldn't assume he's lying just because, well, you know.

    > 2. Most arguments for “mandates” aren’t made in reference to numbers anyway, or reference long COVID, MIS-C, etc rather than fatality rate.

The only argument for mandates was that we should "do it for grandma" or some other completely senseless claim considering I don't know anybody who was vaccinated that still didn't get and spread Covid (multiple times in most cases).

    > 3. This article is for pre-vaccine IFR (i.e. 2020 COVID, the extinct Wuhan strain) and most current arguments reference newer variants which are alleged to be more dangerous. Delta actually was significantly more dangerous although omicron variants are probably back to the original 2020 IFR in the unvaccinated.

I would probably take your word on this if not for the previous 2 points. I haven't seen any data indicating newer variants in circulation are more dangerous. I wouldn't mind seeing the data though if you have it handy.

[javagram]

> Starting off with an ad hominem almost made me completely dismiss the rest of your post, assuming you started with your best point.

The point seems clear enough to me. He’s not likely to have changed his views or methods in this new article, therefore someone who had an issue with his IFR figures in 2021 still isn’t going to find it convincing.

Not sure what Hitler has to do with anything.

> The only argument for mandates was that we should "do it for grandma" or some other completely senseless claim considering I don't know anybody who was vaccinated that still didn't get and spread Covid (multiple times in most cases).

It’s unclear what “mandates” are referred to in the original post. You seem to think it refers to vaccines. That was not the only argument put forth for vaccine mandates. There are quite a few others which you can find by googling, of various or dubious validity.

Edit: I agree btw that some justifications for vaccine mandates no longer seem to make sense in the face of omicron breaking through vaccine protection from infection.

> haven't seen any data indicating newer variants in circulation are more dangerous.

Omicron is widely reported to be milder and less dangerous than delta. I’m surprised you haven’t seen this since it was all over even popular media in 2021. Here’s the first article on google. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35415869/

Also, to be clear , as I mentioned “alleged” in my original post - there’s been a lot of scary social media posts hyping up various Omicron variants as more dangerous. None of which have panned out as far as I know, which is why I mentioned Omicron still seems less dangerous than delta.

[yucky]

   > Not sure what Hitler has to do with anything.

As much as anything this guy said in the past. I don't know or care who he is, if you have an issue with false data being presented here, then show how it is false. Since you haven't I can assume you can't. Which makes your statement about the author irrelevant. We're discussing this piece and the information contained herein.

  > Omicron is widely reported to be milder and less dangerous than delta. 

Neither of these are the original Wuhan virus, which was the most dangerous. Omicron and Delta both appear to be far less dangerous than the OG Covid strain. Or did you mean something different?

[busymom0]

Why start your comment with an ad hominem attack? Also his IFR numbers appear similar to few other studies too. So nothing extremely out of ordinary.

[javagram]

It’s not an ad hominem. He’s stated his position in the past quite clearly in multiple journal articles and no real reason to believe he’s changed his approach. As far as “similar”, his approach led to a calculation of 0.15% IFR whereas others argued for a 0.5-0.6% IFR. I think most would consider that a significant difference. Ioannidis himself does since he harshly criticized others who reported the higher numbers. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...

[Gibbon1]

I read his paper in 2020 and it was not even wrong. Which for me put him into the 'lies about stuff' category. And when a when a source is known to lie you should weight everything they say with a weight of zero.

Their statement * 0 = nothing.

See the legal principal Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything).

[busymom0]

You still haven’t pointed out what’s actually wrong with his study and findings. Starting off your comment with attacking the author instead of pointing out what’s wrong with the study is very clearly ad hominem.