[dabigv13]

IMHO, there is a of immense proportions delta between "making data public" and needlessly extrapolating a non-credible IFR estimate and seeking widespread media coverage by giving interviews, press releases, etc., all broadcasting that this is not much worse than the flu, as several of the co-authors of this paper have been doing since at least mid March. IMHO, it's VERY hard to rebut an accusation of bad faith given how flawed this paper is.

You underestimate the power of hubris and stupidity :-). Seriously, just because you (and others) believe the conclusions are flawed why do you ipso facto believe those that disagree with you are operating in "bad faith"?   Granted, it may be the authors are "bad" people, I really don't know. But until I have concrete evidence otherwise, I am willing to accept the idea they are honest in intent but wrong in some conclusions. To do otherwise is ad hominem, IMHO.

Good scientists don't go to the media with unbacked predictions, and then publish a study with fundamental errors that gives support to their prior untested theories.

That's not ad hominem to observe. This is far from normal operating procedure and I'll be surprised if this paper is published in a reputable journal after peer review without extensive revisions.

[dabigv13]

IMHO, there is a of immense proportions delta between "making data public" and needlessly extrapolating a non-credible IFR estimate and seeking widespread media coverage by giving interviews, press releases, etc., all broadcasting that this is not much worse than the flu, as several of the co-authors of this paper have been doing since at least mid March. IMHO, it's VERY hard to rebut an accusation of bad faith given how flawed this paper is.

You underestimate the power of hubris and stupidity :-). Seriously, just because you (and others) believe the conclusions are flawed why do you ipso facto believe those that disagree with you are operating in "bad faith"?   Granted, it may be the authors are "bad" people, I really don't know. But until I have concrete evidence otherwise, I am willing to accept the idea they are honest in intent but wrong in some conclusions. To do otherwise is ad hominem, IMHO.

Good scientists don't go to the media with unbacked predictions, and then publish a study with fundamental errors that gives support to their prior untested theories.

That's not ad hominem to observe. This is far from normal operating procedure and I'll be surprised if this paper is published in a reputable journal after peer review without extensive revisions.