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'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]
This paper was met with disregard on HN [2], but the persistent reach of Ioannidis shows why Taleb's arguments have value.
Some on Twitter argue that the WHO statement on January 14th shows where Ioannidis' approach fails: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission..." [3] Authorities were looking for evidence before taking any action.
This paper was met with disregard on HN [2], but the persistent reach of Ioannidis shows why Taleb's arguments have value.
Some on Twitter argue that the WHO statement on January 14th shows where Ioannidis' approach fails: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission..." [3] Authorities were looking for evidence before taking any action.
[1] https://necsi.edu/systemic-risk-of-pandemic-via-novel-pathog...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22154333
[3] https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152