I agree with 50% with what these two conclude.
Here's what I disagree with:
They completely side step Ivermectin.
They say the vaccines are brilliant.
They admit they work with the FDA and are both friendly with Fauci. This clearly influences their 'opinions.'
Bearing these things in mind, they completely ignore the real world data which directly opposes these viewpoints. All the science papers are linked in my Covid-19 section.
If you think I am arrogant or ridiculous for disagreeing with these two, then please, write to these two and say "some silly conspiracy theorist in Surrey says you're wrong and are intentionally avoiding the real data, why don't you get in touch with him and invite him on to the next conversation." I'd love it.
Obviously, this will not happen, but I wonder why they do not invite Peter McCullough or Peter Doshi from the BMJ? If they're so insistent on data, these two would be prime scientists to talk to as well.
Here are some links to Covid-related studies and articles by Prof. Ioannidis:
Santa Clara seroprevalence study in the International Journal of Epidemiology
IFR study in the Bulletin of the WHO
IFR study in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Second IFR study in the European Journal of Epidemiology (in press, currently available as preprint)
Precision shielding in BMJ Global Health
Limitations of modelling in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
“A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data” in Stat News (March 17th 2020)
“Saving Democracy from the Pandemic” in Tablet Magazine
“How the Pandemic is changing the Norms of Science” in Tablet Magazine
A full list of John Ioannidis’s COVID-19-related publications can be downloaded from here.