Today brings a bizarre news story from the @WSJ about how everyone is being mean to poor John Ioannidis because of his coronavirus contrarianism.

It's behind a paywall, but I'll bring you some of the highlights. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176

Yo dawg, we heard you like bounds so we put lower and upper bounds on your lower and upper bounds so you could bound when you bound....

(Also 1% morality or even the upper lower bound of 0.625% mortality is NOTHING LIKE seasonal flu)

I swear this is a news story, not a personals ad. Dont @ me.

Presented without comment.

Wait, are we talking about the same LA county where Ioannidis's collaborators did their seroprevalence study that they touted via press release but still haven't released to the scientific community?

Because maybe I'm still hung up on the missing data from Ioannidis's SC study.

Already this year in New York City, the rate of COVID death for people 18-44 is 9 per 100,000. The *annual* suicide rate is 5.5 per 100,000 overall, and increases rather than decreasing with age so this is an overestimate for that age group.

Immature??? I've been called a lot worse.

People don't find the Stanford study worrisome because the virus is easily transmitted. They find it worrisome because it is a methodological piece of shit. (e.g. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email, etc)

And on than ouroborian note, I'm out.

/fin

(Addendum: forgot to mention that even a cursory effort at journalism would have uncovered the fact that this supposedly confirmatory study was conducted by members of the same team as conducted the Santa Clara study that Ioannidis is trying to defend.)