I know about Barrington and many of his other claims, but I don't recall him actually saying anything that I would classify as conspiracy theory. Certainly in my world, a credentialled epidemiologist questioning the accuracy of government statistics during a world health crisis, and suggestion that perhaps our strategy could be different, is not conspiracy theory.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
Such careless use of statistics is hardly uncommon; but it's funny to see that he succumbed too, perhaps blinded by the same factors he identifies in this paper.
Beyond that, he sometimes advocated for a less restrictive response on the basis of predictions (of deaths, infections, etc.) that turned out to be incorrect. I don't think that's a conspiracy theory, though. Are the scientists who advocated for school closures now "conspiracy theorists" too, because they failed to predict the learning loss and social harm we now observe in those children? Any pandemic response comes with immense harms, which are near-impossible to predict or even articulate fully, let alone trade off in an unquestionably optimal way.
I fully agree. (Well, with some caveats. I think credentials matters less than facts. And I think epidemiology is still in its infancy, so I personally don't put much faith in any single epidemiologist.)
Maybe conspiracy theorist is the wrong term. What he did was show a very political concern with public policy (especially IIUC his opposition to lockdowns) and very little concern about the quality of his research or the people it affected.
This article seems pretty decent at containing details: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis...
You mention Barrington, from the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration
> The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies stated that the strategy would be dangerous and lacked a sound scientific basis.
So I guess maybe less "conspiracy theory" and more "recklessly dangerous" or "abandonment of the Hippocratic oath".
I saw a lot of "epidemiological immune system" activity during COVID- if you didn't toe a specific line, the larger community would attack you, right or wrong. My guess is that this is mainly from historical experience with vaccines and large-scale disease outbreaks, where having a simple, consistent message that did not freak out the population is considered more importantly than being absolutely technically correct.
The Lancet estimated that about 40% of US covid deaths could have been avoided if the administration had better policies. That's a bit over 400,000 deaths. That's about the same number of Americans lost during WWII.
Not all of that can be directly attributed to John Ioannidis's advocacy against lockdowns, but it at least gives us a sense of how big a blunder it was.