The Great Barrington Declaration

[Ibake]

I watched this today and then read the subsequent articles. I found it very powerful, not least because it talks very specifically about how we protect the old and clinically vulnerable. They call it Focused Protection and argue that it is what we should replace lockdowns with so that we don't destroy our children's education, our healthcare systems and the economy whilst trying to mitigate the global effect of Covid.

World renowned epidemiologists and immunologists have put their name to it (attached pic)

It's 30 mins long but worth watching.
unherd.com/2020/10/covid-experts-there-is-another-way/?fbclid=IwAR0UZJSBkqMZwNxhZsgrFxQikRPpEj6IvxsaCO6r12RK5BCYeRz6gk0QyPQ

gbdeclaration.org
If you agree with the content you can also sign the declaration.

reaction.life/we-are-throwing-the-working-class-under-the-bus-an-interview-with-professor-martin-kulldorff/

I read this earlier, very interesting and compelling.

You can’t make it apolitical because it is a political decision as to how much you would like to support people in lockdown or support people who are vulnerable. Would you segregate the care homes so you have those who wish to see relatives and those who prefer to keep safe? Would you block access for islands or areas that are low-infection? Are you willing to ban private testing and only allow govt to control who gets it on a needs basis? Or spend money on testing facilities - like they did on nightingales? Or give out rations, electronic devices to people and prevent utilities being cut off? Enforce penalties for going against restrictions? Which exemptions to allow?

All political questions. But how much you do to intervene in the pandemic depends on whether you are willing to take those actions. Aus, nz, East Asian countries have picked a hard hitting approach. Sweden has done relatively laissez faire. Europe are a bit in the middle.

Personally I would rather a strict but holistic approach like nz, aus, Singapore. Because I think in the long term it will do less economic damage as life is much more normal in These places at the moment.

The declaration only makes any sense at all if the Covid-19 virus behaves in the same way as things like Rubella and Polio - where an individual just needs to be exposed to the virus once either by infection or by immunisation, and they will then be immune for the rest of their lives. This is not yet proven.

If instead the virus is more like seasonal flu, mutating and evolving regularly with different strains emerging, and individuals able to be infected by a new strain even if they have previous exposure to an earlier strain, then following the plans in the Declaration would not ever lead to "Herd Immunity" but would instead lead to us just settling for living in a world where life expectancy just suddenly dropped by c15 years.

From a cold-hearted financial point of view that might not be a bad thing - we have a huge number of elderly retired folk whose pensions are supposed to be paid by the economic productivity of a shrinking number of 20-67 year olds, so making decisions which allow the 20-67 year olds to be more economically productive whilst making it more likely that the 67-90+ year olds will start dying more swiftly could be seen as a wise move, but it is quite a harsh decision to make, and might not go down very well with the electorate (67-90+ year olds are of course more likely to vote than 20-67 year olds)

@KihoBebiluPute

The declaration only makes any sense at all if the Covid-19 virus behaves in the same way as things like Rubella and Polio - where an individual just needs to be exposed to the virus once either by infection or by immunisation, and they will then be immune for the rest of their lives. This is not yet proven.

If instead the virus is more like seasonal flu, mutating and evolving regularly with different strains emerging, and individuals able to be infected by a new strain even if they have previous exposure to an earlier strain, then following the plans in the Declaration would not ever lead to "Herd Immunity" but would instead lead to us just settling for living in a world where life expectancy just suddenly dropped by c15 years.

From a cold-hearted financial point of view that might not be a bad thing - we have a huge number of elderly retired folk whose pensions are supposed to be paid by the economic productivity of a shrinking number of 20-67 year olds, so making decisions which allow the 20-67 year olds to be more economically productive whilst making it more likely that the 67-90+ year olds will start dying more swiftly could be seen as a wise move, but it is quite a harsh decision to make, and might not go down very well with the electorate (67-90+ year olds are of course more likely to vote than 20-67 year olds)

The way that schools are being managed exposes kids to infection, but also vulnerable teachers and families in a WGAF manner. We are already just waiting for the effects of spread through these groups.

I wish people would at least be honest that there's no way of actually protecting the vulnerable because:

1. many vulnerable people are in essential jobs such as teaching and healthcare
2. vulnerable people need more healthcare than average so can only avoid leaving the house for so long
3. many healthcare providers would just quit if they were expected to deal with the fallout of just letting it rip

You bet I've signed it! I'm completely over all these restrictions now and desperately need normal life back.

how you view this, whether you think its reasonable or not depends on which category you fall into. those who are young (ish) and vulnerable will not want to sign because it consigns them to months if not years of being shut away and isolated. Those under 60 with no underlying conditions and not obese will think its a fab idea because THEY can go back to normal and isnt that what its all about? If we do this we consign people who have already been dealt the shittest hand of cards because they have an illness or condition that will have already given them huge life disadvantages to being even more disadvantaged. I have skin in this game. One of my DC under 25 with a congenital heart condition. already growing up not able to take part in PE or join in with peers running around. already so much more tired that more than a couple of nights out a week at uni are completely exhausting. already struggling to get travel insurance. And now a group of people who most likely have never been in this position are doing the i'm alright Jack bit and consigning my DC to even more disadvantages because they cant be arsed to wear a mask, isolate when told or take personal responsibility. so no, not signing.

The majority of those signing this may be experts but are not experts in this field. Nor do they have peer reviewed research in this area.

The majority, bar one of two signatories, means little.

I understand it’s comforting for those who want to read this from an “expert” but it’s just cognitive dissonance.

Also.

www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-open-letter-arguing-against-lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

I saw one of the doctors debate on sky news against imperial. I wasn't impressed with her.

Also herd immunity requires a vaccine.

Reinfection occurs and immunity is not long lasting.

...And now a group of people who most likely have never been in this position are doing the i'm alright Jack bit and consigning my DC to even more disadvantages because they cant be arsed to wear a mask, isolate when told or take personal responsibility. so no, not signing.

This ^

What's happening to us? Is it survival of the fittest now? The uber mensch? Only the strong survive?

Its honestly sickening

@RigaBalsam

I saw one of the doctors debate on sky news against imperial. I wasn't impressed with her.

I saw that too and was of the same opinion. There’s been a few of them on Newsnight and they often seem ranty and unsure of what their argument even is. They’re mostly unqualified on this issue and in the minority. They should not be given the same level of exposure as the majority of scientists with opposing views. That’s not how impartiality works.

I signed it. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that lockdown is a complete over reaction. The virus is no more dangerous than the flu.

It is more dangerous than flu. (Fig)

Seriously. How are we still here?

And if anyone could post published and actual peer reviewed research (not ranty blogs or unreviewed papers) by the likes of Gupta and Heneghan on PCR tests or a Covid, please do.

Always check the proper credentials of those you take advice from and share.

Signed

The whole point isn't locking the vulnerable away for months or years, its for three or four months.
Unlike now, where everyone in care homes is literally locked away from lived ones yet that is somehow acceptable.

I’ve signed.

We had months of lockdown and no cure was found. Targeted protection while allowing the healthy to get back to work, earn money and pay taxes is the only way forward. The article was also totally correct in saying the current strategy protects the middle classes while throwing working classes (many of whom are older/vulnerable) and young people under the bus.

Won't be signing it. It would take years, not months to achieve any kind of herd immunity without a vaccine. The vulnerable cannot be protected if the virus is rampant as they require access to services. Unless everyone signing is going to also sign up to locking themselves away alongside us to provide those services?

And that's ignoring the as yet unknown long term effects of Covid on a small but not insignificant proportion of the otherwise well.

I'm completely over all these restrictions now and desperately need normal life back. How do think the elderly and vulnerable feel? They'd like their normal life back too.

Restrictions on movement and holidays in and out of vulnerable areas and islands would be welcome.
It's impossible to separate and protect "the vulnerable ". People making these pronouncements simply have no idea about the enormous amount of people who have comorbidities, where they live, who they live with, the support they require or the important jobs they may have in society.
That's because this information is private to those individuals and is nobody else's business!!! If they did know they would be very surprised - this is an example https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/07/texas-doctor-adeline-fagan-covid-coronavirus?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@BatSegundo

Won't be signing it. It would take years, not months to achieve any kind of herd immunity without a vaccine. The vulnerable cannot be protected if the virus is rampant as they require access to services. Unless everyone signing is going to also sign up to locking themselves away alongside us to provide those services?

And that's ignoring the as yet unknown long term effects of Covid on a small but not insignificant proportion of the otherwise well.

Also it's now been shown that reinfection is possible. Of course we don't know how common this will be yet, or the likely severity of subsequent infections, but it does suggest natural herd immunity might not be possible. So even if we were to accept the horrendous death toll and long term damage that this strategy would entail, it still quite possibly wouldn't get us to that goal. We really are dependent on science to get us out of this in my opinion.

@MereDintofPandiculation

I'm completely over all these restrictions now and desperately need normal life back. How do think the elderly and vulnerable feel? They'd like their normal life back too.

Completely understand that, but how is it helping them if we are ALL locked away? At least if the fit and healthy are participating in a semi-normal society then the economy is maintained to a degree to enable the vulnerable to stay under protection? With the added benefit of moving towards herd immunity whilst we wait for a vaccine.

If we all stay locked away for years on end, there will be nothing left for anyone.

I've signed it OP.

There's no herd immunity without a vaccine. It's a coronavirus and reinfection is proven. This "declaration" is pseudoscience and its premise of protecting the vulnerable is unworkable whilst also letting the rest of the population take a gamble with long term health.
Besides, Gupta thinks we're already at herd immunity - not sure how she's going to explain what happens this Autumn. Their arguments are going to crumble to dust over the next three months, along with our health service, economy and freedoms.
Meanwhile China, NZ, Aus, Pacific Rim etc are actually getting on with the business of living, studying, working and thriving. They acted decisively and collectively and are now reaping the rewards.

I've signed

I'm old and obese so vulnerable (ish)

I think it's the right thing to do.

I've signed.

Yes, some people will die. Including, possibly, members of my own family. (Some, not many, in term of percentage of population.) But human beings have died of diseases since human beings stood up and walked on two legs. It is beyond arrogant to assume that we can stop this.

Lockdown was worth a try. But it didn't work. The virus surges back whenever restrictions are lifted. There should at least be a fixed end point after which we try a more focused protection approach.