- He calls himself an epidemiologist but is actually a student (no PhD) who has barely published anything.

- The guy's criticisms of Ioannidis' work aren't technically valid.

- He is a columnist at the "American Council of Science and Health" but doesn't report that as a conflict of interest.

Despite this, Ioannidis goes out of his way to say nice things about the tweeter, like "The Twitter account has interesting, smart content with strong advocacy, often supporting worthy causes".

This dispute seems fairly typical of the science world. Things are in one moment totally unacceptable and terrible, like "armchair epidemiologists" commenting on things they aren't specialists in, and in the next moment pointing out some rando on Twitter isn't a qualified epidemiologist is "unusual" and an unacceptable ad hominem attack.

I thought he made some good points in the OP, and also some weird points.

I think science as actually practiced is a human endeavor in which at it's best the humans involved try to use systems and procedures to neutralize the inevitable biases and interests of the individual humans involved, but this is a goal that we (at best, and we're not always at our best, including lately) approach asymptotically. I think this understanding is compatible with Ioannidis own framework for understanding science, and he'd largely agree with it. I think this perspective tells us that it's not irrelevant to look at the personal context and interests of someone participating in the discourse with an opinion piece like this (unlike Ioannidis famous "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", this piece is an opinion piece, not the report of scientific research. It's true that I could have included the context that he's the author of that well-known-on-HN piece too; I did link to the wikipedia article where anyone can read more).

See also RA Fisher and his bad analysis of smoking and cancer. Fisher was famous enough that his celebrity overrode his terrible analysis during one of the most crucial questions of his time.

Please show a source for that claim about a 3.4% IFR in the IHME. As far as I know, nobody serious ever made such a claim. The serious IFR estimates from very early on were roughly 1% plus minus a little (e.g. the Imperial models were assuming a 0.9% IFR), and it looks like those initial estimates were spot on.

The exception to that is Ioannidis, who early on was claiming that the IFR would be two orders of magnitude lower than that. He predicted there would be only 10k dead in the US when there were 120 deaths. Three weeks later, there were 20k. He staked his reputation on absurd claims, and has been doubling down on borderling fraudulent research since then to support those initial mistakes.

I don't have a cite, but I feel like I remember people suggesting (whether based on something other than their imagination I don't recall) up to 5% IFR if no medical care was received, perhaps because medical system had collapsed under demand?

But in general of course what you say seems right, and I appreciate your well-informed discussion contribution, thanks.