Here is a proper 20-20 hindsight analysis: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... mostly about this paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v...

The numbers he found were completely inconsistent with other well known numbers at the time. He didn’t shit-test his analysis against reality, instead he published bullshit science, ironically enough given his most cited paper.

This is the analysis I previously referred to that was shit: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...

I recall he ignored conflicting information from other sources[1], he was jumping to conclusions based on the thin Diamond Princess information, and I felt he was politically advocating for more scientific delay. Resulting in articles like: https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indic...

He doubled down. Was badly wrong. Unfortunately it is still a political topic, especially in the US, so it is hard to have a sensible conversation about it.

[1] his article was on the 17th March and the WaPo article I referenced talked about Berano on the 23rd March - I haven’t checked whether he should have known the Berano facts publically. https://archive.ph/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/euro...

The point is that Ioannidis had a pattern of behaviour of writing obviously biased rubbish during that time.