In an otherwise reflective essay by Prof Devi Sridhar (Why can’t some scientists just admit they were wrong about Covid?, 24 March), I was surprised to learn that I held views I do not hold. Early in 2020, I wrote a piece asking for more data, but this certainly did not “mock” those who were worried about Covid-19. I was worried myself.
I remain concerned about both Covid-19 and our frequently non-evidence-based responses to it. I have published dozens of peer-reviewed Covid-19-related papers (collected here under “Projects”). Like all science, I expect those papers must have many weaknesses. I always look for questioning scholars, like Prof Sridhar, to improve on them. However, I fear that isolating single sentences out of context, distorting the meaning of others and using misleading slogans (eg “Covid-as-flu”) can’t promote scientific precision or help society.
I celebrate the scientific progress made since 2020. I wasn’t “cynical” about vaccines and treatments, but elated to see effective interventions developed faster than most scientists expected. We should promote their evidence-based use. However, my ignorance on many matters still remains large. Both before and during the pandemic, I have repeatedly discussed my own mistakes. Prof Sridhar has previously pushed for Sars-CoV-2 eradication; opposed opening schools; promoted draconian lockdowns; even advocated cancelling the Olympics. It reflects the nature of research during uncertainty that her spirited positions evolve as well.
Prof John PA Ioannidis
Stanford University
