Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: an overview of systematic evaluations, 2021, Ioannidis

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

Abstract
Background
Estimates of community spread and infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID‐19 have varied across studies. Efforts to synthesize the evidence reach seemingly discrepant conclusions.

Methods
Systematic evaluations of seroprevalence studies that had no restrictions based on country and which estimated either total number of people infected and/or aggregate IFRs were identified. Information was extracted and compared on eligibility criteria, searches, amount of evidence included, corrections/adjustments of seroprevalence and death counts, quantitative syntheses and handling of heterogeneity, main estimates, and global representativeness.

Results
Six systematic evaluations were eligible. Each combined data from 10‐338 studies (9‐50 countries), because of different eligibility criteria. Two evaluations had some overt flaws in data, violations of stated eligibility criteria, and biased eligibility criteria (e.g. excluding studies with few deaths) that consistently inflated IFR estimates. Perusal of quantitative synthesis methods also exhibited several challenges and biases. Global representativeness was low with 78‐100% of the evidence coming from Europe or the Americas; the two most problematic evaluations considered only 1 study from other continents. Allowing for these caveats, 4 evaluations largely agreed in their main final estimates for global spread of the pandemic and the other two evaluations would also agree after correcting overt flaws and biases.

Conclusions
All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5‐2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries, and locations.

 

Mods have added a first post to provide the abstract and link and changed the thread title.
Original thread title:
Ioannidis ad-hominem attack paper

Not MECFS, but indicative of the status of peer-reviewed journals. Or maybe none of the reviewers read the appendix.


https://twitter.com/user/status/1376080062131269634



https://twitter.com/user/status/1376304539897237508

 

That was shocking and disturbing behavior by Ioannidis. He was former editor-in-chief of the journal in which he published that attack, so it wasn't exactly a hands-off publishing policy. Kind of like Wessely using the journal of the august society of which he was president to publish bullshit claims along with Chalder about the effectiveness of CBT in CFS clinics.

 

I agree it is shocking and disturbing.

What shocks and disturbs me even more is that it's just so blatant and public.

Not only that but presumably Ioannidis has friends at the journal...you would think surely one of those would step in and have a word with him & point out his response reflects badly.

They don't though. This behaviour is obviously seen as an acceptable response by his pals at the journal too.

So if you move in the right circles you can respond to reasoned argument with personal attacks but if you're face doesn't fit it's acceptable to for others to attack you for having an opinion and using the appropriate channels to air it.

Reflects very badly on the whole field.

 

Good thread on this topic....

https://twitter.com/user/status/1376579652618190850

 

Is he not the guy who shocked us by doing a dreadful study in Silicon Valley that concluded that covid was very widespread so the death rate was actually low so there should not be lockdowns?

They did not take into account that they were giving free tests at a time when they were not easily available so people who suspected they were infected were more likely to come along. It appeared to be politically motivated.

 

Yes....that guy

 

This blog, in part, covers this, Blog: Hilda Bastian, "A Cartoon Guide to Criticism: Scientist Edition"