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/

@CherryPavlova I agree with every single word you have said

The research from Edinburgh Uni is interesting though. That repeated lockdowns then opening up may cause more deaths.

Whilst I’m not supporting herd immunity I do think there would have been more benefit to have let children and students go back maybe in a staggered fashion in May/June. When they could be outside more in the summer when other viruses weren’t around so much. Then we would have had a natural break over August.

We can’t follow an eradication strategy. So rather than these huge peaks as we open everything back up right in Autumn, it would have been better to let it bubble away at a lower level throughout summer?

I understand we don’t know enough about immunity but out of the millions infected there have only been a handful of reinfections? So we can assume at least some immunity for most people for 6 months or so. That would have got many people through the winter... Then they wouldn’t have been spreading it around now as much. There wouldn’t have been this huge second peak right in flu season.

But that's just what we did @Delatron - let it bubble away over the Summer. We had the great summer getaway, the eat out to help out. Before that we had schools partially open to fewer year groups in June and July and the message of back to work if you can. It was in September that all schoolchildren and uni students returned all at once and the cases have rocketed. School staff said all along staggered and rotas to reduce numbers were needed.

@CherryPavlova great post.

I just don’t think letting all the kids and uni students go back at the same time was the best idea. Especially in September.

@CherryPavlova, very well said.
The LBC conspiracy theorists were running with TBD yesterday afternoon, and using as their "scientist" a (first hit on Google reveals) discredited and removed from his professorship post for falsifying academic credentials. When asked for an article reviewed in a scientific journal, they came up with something written by this ex professor in a local Iowan newspaper.

I've had a listen to the news and LBC today.
My main take (as a humble person of average intelligence, ) is a lot scientists want ' herd immunity' and many do not!
It leaves us precisely nowhere as all the arguments and in fighting just muddy the waters. It's a bit like ' leave or remain ' was back in 2016.
I'm of the opinion that we must just follow basic guidelines and use some common sense. The problem with ' shielding the vulnerable' sounds good in practice but hard to administer as the vulnerable in their homes will need people to see them who may be vulnerable themselves! Where does that leave them?
A few teachers where I work are overweight and have underlying health problems , but they have to go into work ..
If they go off to 'shield ' where does that leave schools? Oddly enough schools have hardly been mentioned only colleges and university's..same goes for care home workers many of whom are older or have health problems.. the list is endless.
We have an aging population and many social care issues long before this came along but nobody seemed to care much back then.
I'm sure that many people just want it all to just go away and take their chances but it doesn't work like that does it? Not when you start thinking outside your own bubble or your own circumstances.
So many conflicting ideas are thrown about , it seems to me anyway.

a lot scientists want ' herd immunity' and many do not

False equivalence. Those who advocate a herd immunity approach represent a minority/ fringe view.

The research from Edinburgh Uni is interesting though. That repeated lockdowns then opening up may cause more deaths.

A study by academics in the school of physics and astronomy. One of the co-authors "acknowledges that the predictions only hold if an effective vaccine is not available to the UK population within a few years."

Coffee, I did point out this is my own opinion based on watching the news and listening to the radio. Even the lady from the WHO said that lockdowns do not work and she wasn't saying ' herd immunity' either ( this was on bbc news yesterday where they had two conflicting views being aired) it confused me to be honest.
The Barrington declaration has been signed by many people. Who are they all then? Are they all discredited scientists?
So people have different views. It just makes deciding the best outcome much harder to achieve for governments! That's how I see it anyway.

I don't really understand how herd immunity has ever been considered a viable strategy when we don't actually know if it's possible.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-brazil-manaus/in-brazils-amazon-a-covid-19-resurgence-dashes-herd-immunity-hopes-idUKKBN26I0I8

Think it's also worth noting that in their bid to develop herd immunity this happened:

"In April and May, so many Manaus residents were dying from COVID-19 that its hospitals collapsed and cemeteries could not dig graves fast enough. The city never imposed a full lockdown. Non-essential businesses were closed but many simply ignored social distancing guidelines."

"In Manaus, daily burials and cremations fell from a peak of 277 on May 1 to just 45 in mid-September, the mayor’s office said. The COVID-19 death toll that officially peaked at 60 on April 30 dropped to just two or three a day by late August. Now the numbers are on the rise again."

Another description of what happened - it's harrowing.
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/brazil-manaus-coronavirus-mass-graves

I'd prefer not to lockdown - the easiest way to do this is to suppress the virus to manageable levels. To do this we need social distancing and masks pretty much everywhere (yes, in schools, schools need extra money) - other countries have achieved this.

It isn't a choice between lockdown or 'let it rip'. Lockdown is what happens WHEN we 'let it rip' and don't wear masks and don't socially distance (well that or the bodies pile up and the NHS is overwhelmed).

Actually, from listening to the Indie Sage briefing, almost all reputable scientists think herd immunity is a non starter, and it is really only a small number of fringe people who are arguing for it.

However

• the media like controversial opinions, and also like setting up radio and TV debates with 1 sensible opinion and 1 maverick, which makes the maverick sound more main stream (this is a longstanding problem)

-lots of people like the idea of herd immunity because then "life could get back to normal" for lots of people, at least till the NHS was overwhelmed and etc.

• we have a libertarian government who would really like to go with herd immunity, but that was what they wanted to do in March until it didn't work. Then, we had to lock down and somehow we ended up with a really bad hit to the economy but also an embarrassingly high death toll, oops.

The Barrington declaration has been signed by many people. Who are they all then? Are they all discredited scientists?

I am not sure what is meant by discredited? The original declaration was signed by 3 main signatories and about 32 secondary signatories. The 3 main signatories are all infectious disease academics, but many of the secondary signatories are not (eg Sikora, who is an oncologist). The declaration was signed online by thousands of other people, some clearly with fake/ joke names, others may indeed be who they say they are, although many of these are not infectious disease experts, some claim to be reflexologists, homeopaths etc.

Therefore it's misleading for the media to report this as being signed by "thousands of top scientists".

The main issue is that they advocate a policy of allowing young people and non vulnerable people to get back to normal while sheltering those who are more vulnerable. Apart from possible ethical/ moral issues with this approach they fail to address a number of the potential practical issues of this approach or provide clear evidence of exactly how it would work.

There is nothing wrong with having a debate about how to proceed, but any alternative approach needs to be evidence based and have support from people with relevant expertise.

I liked this comment from Chris Van Tulleken (Operation Ouch, and a public health physician when not on the telly)

"If you haven't GREAT barrington declaration yet I can't recommend it. It's tough read. So great, so grand, the words don't fit easily into a human eyeball. The tone is subtly repellant but it's also unkind, fraudulent, political, arrogant and entirely pointless"

@CoffeeandCroissant

The Barrington declaration has been signed by many people. Who are they all then? Are they all discredited scientists?

I am not sure what is meant by discredited? The original declaration was signed by 3 main signatories and about 32 secondary signatories. The 3 main signatories are all infectious disease academics, but many of the secondary signatories are not (eg Sikora, who is an oncologist). The declaration was signed online by thousands of other people, some clearly with fake/ joke names, others may indeed be who they say they are, although many of these are not infectious disease experts, some claim to be reflexologists, homeopaths etc.

Therefore it's misleading for the media to report this as being signed by "thousands of top scientists".

The main issue is that they advocate a policy of allowing young people and non vulnerable people to get back to normal while sheltering those who are more vulnerable. Apart from possible ethical/ moral issues with this approach they fail to address a number of the potential practical issues of this approach or provide clear evidence of exactly how it would work.

There is nothing wrong with having a debate about how to proceed, but any alternative approach needs to be evidence based and have support from people with relevant expertise.

Sikora has been called dangerous and criticised heavily for his views. He’s an oncologist not an epidemiologist. Dr Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health, University of Southampton, said the Covid-19 pandemic is accelerating globally.

He said: "It would be very dangerous to promote the idea that the virus is 'fizzling out'.

bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-barrington-declaration/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/11/the-rebel-scientists-cause-would-be-more-persuasive-if-it-werent-so-half-baked

There is a lot of determination that people stick to one viewpoint only on this, isn't there?

What galls me is the accusations of callousness and selfishness for questioning lockdown, when even the WHO has said it shouldn't be a long term strategy due to the huge increase in poverty it causes.

I am not saying there are not flaws with these ideas, but the lockdowm strategy has hardly been flawless either has it?

We need to urgently look at what course is being taken and if, as I suspect it will, the damage will be far worse from that than from a certain amount of excess mortality from the virus.

We need to urgently look at what course is being taken and if, as I suspect it will, the damage will be far worse from that than from a certain amount of excess mortality from the virus.

There have been lots of deaths due to lockdown (directly and indirectly) as well as a big rise in mental health problems!

@MaxNormal

There is a lot of determination that people stick to one viewpoint only on this, isn't there?

What galls me is the accusations of callousness and selfishness for questioning lockdown, when even the WHO has said it shouldn't be a long term strategy due to the huge increase in poverty it causes.

I am not saying there are not flaws with these ideas, but the lockdowm strategy has hardly been flawless either has it?

We need to urgently look at what course is being taken and if, as I suspect it will, the damage will be far worse from that than from a certain amount of excess mortality from the virus.

No. I’ve seen a number of different viewpoints expressed over the course of the last few months. But this isn’t a viable one.

And the WHO said it shouldn’t be the primary strategy I.e. don’t let the numbers get out of control until the point that the only option left to you is lockdown. They are suggesting governments use strategies and systems to control the spread of the virus which is the opposite of what is being suggested here.

And FWIW they’ve been extremely clear about not thinking you are immune from effects of the virus because you are young or in a low risk group.

And FWIW they’ve been extremely clear about not thinking you are immune from effects of the virus because you are young or in a low risk group.

Which is odd because that is in complete contradiction to the actual numbers.
Leaving aside anecdotes, the risk from the virus is vanishingly small for the young and the healthy.

Are you saying that this ongoing, damaging mess that is what passes for the UK's current strategy is a viable option?

It depends on how much risk you want to run if NHS being overwhelmed, given there's next to no slack in the system in a normal year.

What is necessary in the winter months will not be the picture in the spring

There are certainly a variety of view points on this Forum.

I think Indie Sage are very sensible and guided by science.

There aren't only the 2 alternatives of lockdown, or Great Barrington.

The Great Barrington proposal is a bit fringe science, but if we can adopt a scientific approach, we would be in a better position to keep things open safer and longer.