In the slide below, Ioannidis discusses age-specific IFR (infection fatality rate), i.e. what proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people die of the disease COVID-19 at various ages.
This is not the first time Ioannidis has criticized that paper by distorting other research. It's just the first time I've seen him be so blatant + brazen in his distortions.
The Axfors update even adds Imperial College's analysis (ICCRT; see part 11/U), again illustrating how much Ioannidis' Axfors results are a low outlier.
Remember, he did a misleading comparison of orange vs. red, when it should be orange vs. blue.
"In Africa, [COVID-19 deaths were] tremendously undercounted. In India, not as much as it is feared. If you put the numbers in the model, it suggests that there's a little bit of an undercounting. But not tremendous undercounting"
16/U
Several studies present observational evidence of tremendous under-counting of COVID-19 deaths in India, contradicting Ioannidis' model-based claim.
Researchers keep getting age-specific infection fatality rates larger than Ioannidis' work. Amazing how he can still claim his work isn't a low outlier.
Re: "Ioannidis continues claiming he was right all along + that COVID-19 is less dangerous than it actually is.
Of course, the usual COVID-19 minimizers like it."
Thread on a myth Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) continues to peddle to undermine confidence in public health agencies and to suit his policy agenda.
The myth may undermine responses to future public health emergencies.
Reporting systems are not perfect, so they sometimes miss infected people. That makes reported cases less than total infections, and thus CFR is higher than IFR.
The WHO was open about this since the early stages of the pandemic: