Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13222

by jp_sc • 6 years ago

11 5 6 years ago

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

jp_sc• 6 years ago

Two months ago, this was posted here and many supported the idea that the measures were an "overreaction".

salmon30salmon• 6 years ago

What is your point? Many still believe the measures taken were an overreaction.

scotty79• 6 years ago

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...

ZeroGravitas• 6 years ago

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".

angry_octet• 6 years ago

With hindsight, Ioannidis looks like an even greater fool.

Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

Related Stories