But instead of evolving their position based on new data, some, instead, keep trying to show how they were still right in early 2020, digging themselves an even deeper hole. A case in point is Stanford professor John Ioannidis, who, in March 2020, argued that governments were overreacting to the threat of Covid.
He mocked those who worried that the “68 deaths from Covid-19 in the US as of 16 March will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000”. He estimated that the US might suffer only 10,000 deaths. He also was cynical that vaccines or treatments could be developed in any timeframe that would affect the trajectory of the pandemic.
Two years later, the current US death toll
stands at 969,000, with almost
250,000 of those being people under 65. These numbers would have once been seen as outlandish. In addition, in less than a year we had developed
safe and effective vaccines – and a year after that,
safe and effective antivirals. One would expect these facts to prompt an academic to reconsider their initial assumptions – but instead, Ioannidis has continued to publish articles solidifying his starting position.
Why is this the case? Why can’t academics just admit that they might have got their assumptions wrong at the start, or reassess their positions?
www.worldometers.info
