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/

As one of the "thick fuckers", I'd gladly deliberately catch covid to get all of this over with. I've had it already so will be interesting to see if I'm susceptible to a second dose.

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronvairus-dr-johnny-bananas-and-dr-person-fakename-among-medical-signatories-on-herd-immunity-open-letter-12099947

On the account Dr Harold Shipman, Dr I P freely, Dr Dominic Cummings and plenty oh homeopaths have signed it I'm not quite sure I trust it.

the Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by many respected scientists and medical professionals.

Anyone else can of course also add their (fake) name, so obviously anyone against it will do this!

Anyone else can of course also add their (fake) name, so obviously anyone against it will do this!

One might even do this if one wished to discredit the ideas...

@Sunflowers247

the Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by many respected scientists and medical professionals.

Anyone else can of course also add their (fake) name, so obviously anyone against it will do this!

Sponsored by Koch-funded climate deniers, Big Oil investors and stock market financiers. Even Shipman appears four times. More corruption.

Professor Jay Bhattacharya, of Stanford University, one of the authors of the letter, told Sky News they “do not have the resources to audit each signature”.

“It is unfortunate that some people have abused our trust by adding false names, but I suppose it is inevitable."

@Sunflowers247

Professor Jay Bhattacharya, of Stanford University, one of the authors of the letter, told Sky News they “do not have the resources to audit each signature”.

“It is unfortunate that some people have abused our trust by adding false names, but I suppose it is inevitable."

You’d think they might have policed a few considering the number of fake signatures and noddy qualifications/positions suggested as experts supporting this perspective.

Interestingly it is now very difficult to find in Google

Scientists are not trustworthy just because they are scientists. There were always plenty of scientists who were willing to say smoking did no harm at all, or support the oil companies and deny climate change, or plenty of other malevolent causes. Generally speaking, if the scientists are not well respected by the vast majority of their peers, they are either Galileo or the scientist equivalent of quacks. There are a lot more quacks than there are Galileos.

@AlecTrevelyan006

Interestingly it is now very difficult to find in Google

Yes the level of media censorship is now so high.

I can't decide whether they are mad or evil. Having watched the unherd video I think it's a mixture between the three of them.

I’m a little concerned that people are wetting themselves with glee over holding people down to forcibly inject them. I see how the Stasi was so popular now.

Orgs behind this are climate change deniers. Therefore they have no credibility whatsoever.

On the face of it I'd agree that we must do everything we can to avoid a second national lockdown. For me that's wearing a mask indoors and avoiding large indoor social gatherings. Washing hands as well obviously.

@Funkypolar

I’m a little concerned that people are wetting themselves with glee over holding people down to forcibly inject them. I see how the Stasi was so popular now.

Where is this happening? Who's wetting themselves with glee?

Haven’t rtft in whole, but I will absolutely not be signing this.

Reading it through, noticing the lack of data, lack of references (basically it reads like an opinion piece by academics but without adhering to any sort of academic structure or evidentiary support), it feels like a massive “I’m alright Jack” experimental survival of the fittest.

An approach like this will mean exponential growth, leading to hospitals being completely overwhelmed, which will lead to a higher morbidity rate (would be ecstatic to be proved wrong on this, I suspect I wouldn’t be).

Many people I know have underlying issues, so who decides who is safe and who isn’t? Where do we draw the line?

How is this going to be managed in countries with shit/expensive healthcare because the GBD, if it comes to fruition, will affect people globally.

I understand that people are sick of this. I get that they are being lured by opinion pieces because they’re often more palatable. However, right now I believe we need to cut the bullshit and deal with facts, not assumptions about immunity (we still don’t know if herd immunity is possible, yet this whole bloody document is presenting long term immunity as fact - where is the evidence?), not assumptions that people will be fine (many younger people are hospitalised too), and that getting back to normal during a pandemic is safe.

In time there may be data to back up this document, but right now there just isn’t.

“ TheSeedsOfADream

I think you're onto something there! I'll volunteer to hold the thick fuckers down while somebody else jabs.
I mean, if herd immunity is real, and the virus is harmless, then there should be queues around the block of eager volunteers and their families! Job done.”

Pretty weird thing to say.

Thanks for the posters who provided links and made intelligent and compassionate arguments. I won’t be signing this.

How are we defining vulnerable? Over 50? Overweight? BAME?

So, of all the staff at our GP practice (doctors, nurses, health care assistants, the phlebotomist, receptionists, the practice manager) I think there are one or perhaps two who would not be classified as vulnerable. What should we do? Close down? Where would our 10,000 patients go? Good luck finding hospital doctors and nurses who are not in the vulnerable category.

Quite a lot of my children's teachers and the headteachers would also fall in the vulnerable category. Hmmm, I think quite a high proportion of bus drivers, tube workers, supermarket workers, refuse collectors too...

I have a better idea. We Covid test the whole population once a week. People who test positive and their contacts actually isolate as instructed and are supported to do so. Those that don't continue with normal life. We'll miss a few due to the false negatives but not so many to be ineffective. We suppress the level of infection in society to a manageable level and continue with life.

@kittensarecute - diddums

When Boris talked of herd immunity, he was ripped in to.

When thus lit fdi they expect praise.

But until they can demonstrate how they would effectively protect the vulnerable (who?) this is not a policy.

Tempting for those who are a bit sick of it all. But terrifying for those like bus drivers and HCPs who had a lot of young people ill and dying.

Because the first few weeks of 'normality' really won't be fun, especially with a starting point of infections as ubiquitous as now. And chaotic collapse of the economy, even briefly, would really cause harm.

@Sweetnhappy1

I have a better idea. We Covid test the whole population once a week. People who test positive and their contacts actually isolate as instructed and are supported to do so. Those that don't continue with normal life. We'll miss a few due to the false negatives but not so many to be ineffective. We suppress the level of infection in society to a manageable level and continue with life.

Didn't China at some point test an entire city of 11 million people? They also forcibly removed family members from their own home and sent them to facilities where they were detained for weeks. Our measures may not be as effective and will mean we are stuck with stop/start restrictions but I know where I'd rather be.

@Sweetnhappy1

I have a better idea. We Covid test the whole population once a week. People who test positive and their contacts actually isolate as instructed and are supported to do so. Those that don't continue with normal life. We'll miss a few due to the false negatives but not so many to be ineffective. We suppress the level of infection in society to a manageable level and continue with life.

Nice theory but people don’t follow less restrictive rules and still danced the conga in the streets.

Our Serco track and trace isn’t efficient enough to test everyone weekly. I’m still waiting on test results from twelve days ago. Others can’t get tests.

Hospital trusts and some other communal settings have been stopped from using their own in house, but more effective testing systems.

We don’t even test and enforce isolation of those arriving through airports. We tell them to travel on the tube.

It’s almost as if the government want the virus to spread as a foil for the Brexit catastrophe, to blame the NHS, to create sufficient hatred and division to enable new-fascist policies and unrestricted police activities to pass without going through the house and to line the pockets of Tory donors. Having expensive elderly, disabled and chronically unwell die in large numbers is just a potential hidden bonus for some. Certainly as people face minor inconveniences, the value of life seems to have diminished.

No Weatherspoons until 1am, wearing a mask in shops - outrageous; they’re old anyway. They’re disabled anyway. People shouldn’t be fat, they deserve to die. We should be able to get so drunk we vomit in the streets at 3am and assault healthcare staff. It’s our right. Our mental health will be damaged if we can’t go on holiday with twenty others or baby Bertie can’t have twenty people to his first birthday cake smash.

Good old Boris, such a character. Nasty lawyers wanting to protect the vulnerable. Nasty left wing do-gooders. We want hard line policies that benefit us. We’ll hide it all three word catchphrases.

The better idea might be holding the government to account. Ensuring contracts go to those forms able to deliver. Appointing pesto senior positions with some ability and experience. The appointment of Baroness Harding is a joke. Except it’s not funny.

Bravo @CherryPavlova