Covid-19: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures
Ioannidis continues to push this evidence-based approach, but I have not yet seen an adequate response to critics such as Nassim Taleb or Yaneer Bar-Yam. They argue that one doesn&#x27;t need raw evidence to act if the statistical evidence shows that the risks are catastrophic. They published a paper on January 26th which lays out arguments for why conventional risk management approaches are inadequate in these situations. [1]<p>This paper was met with disregard on HN [2], but the persistent reach of Ioannidis shows why Taleb&#x27;s arguments have value.<p>Some on Twitter argue that the WHO statement on January 14th shows where Ioannidis&#x27; approach fails: &quot;Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission...&quot; [3] Authorities were looking for evidence before taking any action.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;necsi.edu&#x2F;systemic-risk-of-pandemic-via-novel-pathogens-coronavirus-a-note" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;necsi.edu&#x2F;systemic-risk-of-pandemic-via-novel-pathog...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22154333" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22154333</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;WHO&#x2F;status&#x2F;1217043229427761152" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;WHO&#x2F;status&#x2F;1217043229427761152</a>