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 agree with it.
That said even if they do open things back up for the majority, I won't be going anywhere or participating in anything until masks and screens and distancing is gone. I find it so dystopian and mentally disturbing that I would much rather stay at home and I am so glad for technology and online shopping that means I can.

still so many people think the description of vulnerable only applies to those in care homes.
It does not.

Do the sums for yourself.

To let some people go back to normal means the virus runs through society quickly
Under the assumption that by back to normal you mean no NHS cancellations due to covid overload, then you would have to class as vulnerable anyone over age 45

Otherwise, the hospitals get full very quickly, whereupon death rates from everything also go up

What kind of normal do you think that will be? Shortage of teachers, shop assistants, dustbin men, doctors, all having to be protected

It doesn't work

And then there is the issue of the people over 45 who have to pay their bills, get their medicine, take the kids to school ...so the virus gets into your vulnerable population

It really really doesn't work

Sinetra Gupta was interviewed on Sky this afternoon about this proposal. They also had a clinical professor from Leicester on who agreed In principle with almost everything she said, but repeatedly challenged her to set out how her proposals would be implemented in practice. She very obviously struggled to answer the question. Three times...

*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 agree and I've signed it.

I despair at this gathering such momentum, it feels like we're in one of those social experiments, based on what would happen if we were on a raft stranded at sea...*
*hint - The Barrington Signers would be the ones gnawing at your leg, because you're over a certain age/disabled/deemed less worthy by the other Barrington devotees

This article discusses the way the declaration is viewed by the rest of the scientific community.
www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide

This tweet from Devi Sridhar about the downsides of herd immunity (pic 1) and the route we should try and take (if the British Govt weren't such an utter fuck up)

"William Hanage, professor of epidemiology at Harvard, likens the strategy to protecting antiques in a house fire by putting them all in one room, standing guard with a fire extinguisher, but simultaneously fanning the flames."

Allowing the general public to sign online using whatever name they want and self declaring their medical qualifications might turn out to be a mistake.

bit disappointed this isn't Maid Marian related

@Ibake

I had been going to start a thread on this, having just signed - but then thought I'd better see if anyone else had already started one.

I have been opposed to lockdown and the attendant rules since the second it was announced in March. I remain implacably opposed. I have never demonstrated in my life, but if there were a demonstration on the basis of the Barrington Declaration, I would be there.

It really really doesn't work

If you're wanting to eradicate a new virus, you do realise that nothing is going to work, surely?

Whatever is happening at the moment is the worst of all worlds, and I thought things couldn't actually become any worse when we were in full lockdown. I suppose there was a suggestion that we might emerge two months later and be able to get on with our lives and jobs. But it seems that only some lives and jobs actually matter.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

Allowing the general public to sign online using whatever name they want and self declaring their medical qualifications might turn out to be a mistake.

Bit like Track and Trace, but without the medical qualifications.

I have yet to meet anyone who has given their real name or phone number, because I have lived in a country that demanded that you be able to prove your identity at all times, and carry an ID card as proof of this. I will give my details only to the people whom I want to have them tempted to give XH's number for T&T purposes, though

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

Allowing the general public to sign online using whatever name they want and self declaring their medical qualifications might turn out to be a mistake.

Yes, that's what happened with that letter from "Belgian doctors" that was doing the rounds. 'Signed' by Dr Mickey Mouse🐁, Dr Josef Mengele, Dr Michael Mouse and Dr Harold Shipman, etc...

Funnily enough both letters are being promoted by a right wing US think tank (American Institute for Economic Research).

The Barrington Declaration signatories are obviously not being verified, as the name of one of the signees is "not a real doctor" but in Swedish and another is from a professor at the University of Rutland, which does not exist.

Reminds me of Logan's Run.

Considering signing, but may not if somebody can answer the following:

What do we do if there is no effective treatment or vaccine for the foreseeable? Do we live like this indefinitely?

If you’ve got an alternative strategy, I’m all ears.

@MummyPop00

Considering signing, but may not if somebody can answer the following:

What do we do if there is no effective treatment or vaccine for the foreseeable? Do we live like this indefinitely?

If you’ve got an alternative strategy, I’m all ears.

Not an alternative strategy, and I'm not a specialist in contagious diseases.

But if there is no effective treatment or vaccine, we do as we do with all the other unpleasant illnesses that do the rounds, and get on with our lives. Some of us will catch it, and it will make some of us very ill. Others will catch it and not realise. Others won't catch it because they have natural antibodies.

I would personally be far more scared of the antibiotic-resistant 'superbugs', if I were going to be scared of any disease.

Even then, though, I'd be happier at work, earning money, and not finding that the sector I work in has been so comprehensively wrecked that there are now no jobs at all.

Wrote this on another thread..
I am not a fan of TBD because it assumes the following...

• there are a clearly defined group called 'the vulnerable' (who are they? What criteria make up this group?)
• that this group will be able to 'shield' from society indefinitely (ignoring the fact that 'the vulnerable' aren't other to society
• that the only negative consequences of contacting Covid, is death...ignoring the many people who are suffering long Covid, and the unknown consequences of contracting Covid
• that 'the vulnerable' will be happy to shield
• that this will provide adequate protection (don't forget, the death rate was at it's highest when 'the vulnerable' were shielding, and we were in full lockdown)
• how will 'the vulnerable' access essential healthcare in this indefinite period of complete isolation?
• in order for herd immunity to work (and according to Sunetra Gupta, don't forget, we have already achieved it....nearly...oh no, maybe not, as she got her figures wrong...oops)...we have to assume that people achieve immunity once they have had Covid-after all we are all going to get it and let our kids get it (excluding 'the vulnerable' of course) - because, as you know, there is no vaccine at the moment.
• the discussion from the Barrington declaration wrt the negative effects of Lockdown completely ignores that those negative effects will still be there...for 'the vulnerable'
• it sets up a straw man argument of complete lockdown v herd immunity/focused protection. These are not the options we are working with.

Here are some other eminent scientists saying all this and more in a far more intelligent way...
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-open-letter-arguing-against-lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

...oh and a question for the Barrington fans.
When ds is shielding, what is supposed to happen with his sister's? ...do they go to school?
And his dad and I? Continue working or not?
Because when we shielded before we had to do it as a family

I think the idea is you become a family of hermits Bupkis in order for us to achieve a herd immunity.

It all falls apart when the scientists admit that uh oh, wait a minute, oops, you can get it again.

Aren’t we nearly at herd immunity anyway, according to Gupta? So surely this shouldn’t be an issue.

@OverTheRainbowLiesOz

I think the idea is you become a family of hermits Bupkis in order for us to achieve a herd immunity.

It all falls apart when the scientists admit that uh oh, wait a minute, oops, you can get it again.

If they give us a cave to live in, I might think about it

This is a major step forward to a 2 tier society. Barbaric and backwards, bizarre but unsurprising that this is getting pushed through.

No.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/why-herd-immunity-strategy-is-regarded-as-fringe-viewpoint

William Hanage, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard, likens the strategy to protecting antiques in a house fire by putting them all in one room, standing guard with a fire extinguisher but simultaneously fanning the flames.

“If the blaze outside the room were adequately controlled then maybe, just maybe, they would be able to stamp out all the embers,” he said. “But this approach is to actively encourage the fire. The risk is that too many sparks make it through and all you’re left with is ashes.”

...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

Yes yes yes. I am disgusted by the "I'm all right Jack" attitude. "Got cancer? Tough shit. And now, double tough shit. But you'll be shut away so I can go to the pub and go on holiday and I shall never have to think about you or see you again"

[quote Bupkis]Wrote this on another thread..
I am not a fan of TBD because it assumes the following...

• there are a clearly defined group called 'the vulnerable' (who are they? What criteria make up this group?)
• that this group will be able to 'shield' from society indefinitely (ignoring the fact that 'the vulnerable' aren't other to society
• that the only negative consequences of contacting Covid, is death...ignoring the many people who are suffering long Covid, and the unknown consequences of contracting Covid
• that 'the vulnerable' will be happy to shield
• that this will provide adequate protection (don't forget, the death rate was at it's highest when 'the vulnerable' were shielding, and we were in full lockdown)
• how will 'the vulnerable' access essential healthcare in this indefinite period of complete isolation?
• in order for herd immunity to work (and according to Sunetra Gupta, don't forget, we have already achieved it....nearly...oh no, maybe not, as she got her figures wrong...oops)...we have to assume that people achieve immunity once they have had Covid-after all we are all going to get it and let our kids get it (excluding 'the vulnerable' of course) - because, as you know, there is no vaccine at the moment.
• the discussion from the Barrington declaration wrt the negative effects of Lockdown completely ignores that those negative effects will still be there...for 'the vulnerable'
• it sets up a straw man argument of complete lockdown v herd immunity/focused protection. These are not the options we are working with.

Here are some other eminent scientists saying all this and more in a far more intelligent way...
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-open-letter-arguing-against-lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/[/quote]
Agree completely.

This is a waste of paper and ink.