QuoteReplyTopic: Great Barrington Declaration. Posted: October 08 2020 at 9:13am
Signed by
Medical & Public Health Scientists
4,726
Medical Practitioners
8,838
General Public
123,298
The Great Barrington Declaration
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, physician and professor emeritus of medical microbiology, University of Mainz, Germany
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA. Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
That's certainly food for thought. I read a very interesting article a few weeks ago on the mental impact of Covid on the elderly, particularly those living in aged care facilities and it was quite shocking how they are incarcerated like criminals, their relatives are often refused visits and they are being kept out of communal areas and confined to their rooms. As many of the elderly said, this might be their last winter anyway, so why not let them live it. I know for a fact my late mother in law would have absolutely wanted to take the risk and live life as normally as possible. She would not have stayed at home. As she said, she'd already had a full and long life and she would take her end however it came.
The problem comes down to individual choice, which is being denied to millions right now. I strongly disagree with holding old people captive against their wishes, but I can't see how some can be allowed out and to have visitors in without putting as risk others who don't want to take the chance. It's such a tricky one.
Here in NZ we've all had strict lockdowns but the difference here has been they've been short and extreme and applied to everyone, and most importantly, they've worked. I think it would be impossible to eliminate the virus from countries where it's widespread. I honestly think civil rebellion is brewing in many countries where restrictions are constantly being imposed and the where the goal posts keep getting moved. I think the biggest factor to the average person is the financial one. Most people only just have enough money anyway, and Covid is putting millions of people into financial hardship. Anyone can manage on a reduced income for a week, but longer than that and it's unsustainable. When people's homes and livelihood are threatened then things can get really nasty. People won't just stand by and see 20 years of hard work unravel. The governments around the world may well have to let Covid run it's course.
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
Thank you Carbon, That article bears repeating so here it is:
Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint
Scientists say idea of ‘focused protection’ for vulnerable people is very hard to achieve and likely to lead to even higher death toll.
At first glance it sounds like a no-brainer. Coronavirus is most dangerous to older and unhealthier people, so why not protect them and let the rest of society return to life as normal? It would boost the economy and free the young and fit from the mental and financial burdens of Covid restrictions. In time, as the virus tears through them, they will acquire herd immunity that ultimately helps us all.
The strategy proposed in the Great Barrington declaration – a letter signed by an international group of scientists – is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle of ideas for how to tackle the pandemic. It calls on governments around the world to abandon strategies that suppress the virus until we can better cope – through working test-and-trace programmes, new treatments, vaccines and more – for the radically different approach.
The declaration was drawn up at the American Institute for Economic Research, a right-leaning organisation in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, that promotes individual rights, small government and open markets. It registered a web domain for the document.
Authored by Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, and Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard, the declaration has received thousands of signatures. The appearance of Mr Matt Hancock, a “public health academic”, and the Rev Booker Clownn at Trump University suggest not all are serious, but the strategy is being listened to at the highest levels. On Monday the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar, tweeted that the authors had provided “strong reinforcement of the Trump administration’s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace”.
According to the declaration, a “focused protection” approach is the most compassionate way to minimise deaths and social harm until we reach herd immunity – a situation where enough people are resistant to the virus that the pandemic shrinks. But among the scientific community, this is a fringe viewpoint.
“Their proposed strategy is outside the scientific mainstream,” said James Naismith, a professor of structural biology at the University of Oxford. The scientists risk making the same mistake as seen with test and trace, he said: it is easy to describe what is hoped for, but delivery is another matter.
Michael Head, a researcher at Southampton University, believes the declaration is based on the false premise that governments and the scientific community want extensive lockdowns until a vaccine arrives.
“Now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much lighter” than the full lockdown the UK imposed in the spring, he said. Head is among many scientists who are sceptical that the most vulnerable in society can be adequately identified and protected.
“It is a very bad idea,” he said. “We saw that even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that.” In the UK, about a quarter of the population would be classed as vulnerable to Covid-19.
Jonathan Read, a biostatistician at the University of Lancaster and a member of the Sage modelling subgroup, shares the concern. “Shielding of the vulnerable was part of the UK policy since the start of lockdown. The deaths of the elderly, and others at high risk, in care homes and from community infection, even after the imposition of lockdown in March, suggest that a policy that entirely relies on a segregation of society isn’t going to go well,” he said.
The concept of herd immunity is that when enough people are immune to a virus, it no longer spreads. At the start of the pandemic, before mass lockdowns, a patient with Covid-19 might spread the virus to about three others. If two in three, or 66%, are immune, the outbreak soon fizzles out. What troubles many scientists is that with coronavirus no one knows how protected people are after contracting the virus, how long that protection lasts, and exactly what proportion of society needs to be immune to quell a pandemic.
“We know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time and reinfection is possible, so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing herd immunity is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine,” said Rupert Beale, a group leader at the Francis Crick Institute in London. He called the declaration “wishful thinking”, not least because it is impossible to fully identify who is vulnerable and it is not possible to fully protect them.
Infection rates in the UK reveal that as new cases rise in one age group, they spill over into older groups, and from there drive up numbers of people in hospital and, ultimately, deaths. “Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose,” Beale said.
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.”
Another concern many scientists raise is the impact on the young and healthy. While the risk of death is low in people under 40, infection can still expose them to long-term complications that healthcare could be left dealing with for decades, Hanage said. “Quite large numbers of younger people are already becoming infected at present, whether or not they are being encouraged, and there are consequences to those infections."
[Technophobe: The yellow highlights were put in by me. IMHO, the declaration is not 'wrong' and would apply quite well to very poor countries, even though that increases the risks to the rest of the world, but that is each country's perogative - to look after themselves and let the rest of us go hang. Rich 'Western' countries have both larger ageing populations and more financial rescources to use protecting everyone. So the Barrington declaration could be seen as an act of great inhumanity if applied here - just look at the horror Sweden's approach caused. I find it disgusting that the richest people are still expanding their wealth during this crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires Do they really care so little for each other?]
How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving.
Ps. It is important to remember that most scientists have to appease their sponsors. Research costs money and: "He who pays the piper calls The tune." So don't automatically blame them for the deaths this may cause - they may be trying to save even larger numbers.
How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving.
It's not just Americans who are overweight or obese, but the whole of the western world. We have a huge problem with it here in NZ. I read a great article some time ago saying that we were so accustomed to seeing overweight people that now, most people viewed overweight people as normal, obese as overweight, and normal weight as underweight, and I really thinks that's true.
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
I have to say, I feel my inteligence has been insulted. We were expected to believe this?
Signed by: Cominic Dummings (Dominic Cummings)? Booker Clownn (book a clown!) Johnny Bananas, Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena ?
University of your mum, - OK, not the 'important' signatories, but those were thin on the ground (most scientists seem to dissagree with the premise) and that lot did pad things out rather well.
Anyone else feel insulted?
How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving.
I've been sitting in my hands waiting for one of our more critical thinkers to think "hold on a tick. What's an economic think tank doing publishing a medical declaration" and then google American Institute for Economic Research (publishers of the "declaration") to find out their ideology.
I'll make it easy. In short: Republican Economic think tank that folks like the Koch Brothers help fund.
Other than stating there are no cites to medical research supporting the declaration, need I say more?
I have to say, I feel my inteligence has been insulted. We were expected to believe this?
Signed by: Cominic Dummings (Dominic Cummings)? Booker Clownn (book a clown!) Johnny Bananas, Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena ?
University of your mum, - OK, not the 'important' signatories, but those were thin on the ground (most scientists seem to dissagree with the premise) and that lot did pad things out rather well.
Anyone else feel insulted?
The cited authors credentials are beyond reproach, they are leading epidemiologist. It's an open site where anyone could sign it. Bound to be a few clowns, it is the internet. Kinda like this site where garbage is posted frequently without the benefit of fact, is mere speculation/ conspiracy or is tainted beyond the pale with politics rendering any validity to the information. So save your indignation.
“Facts don't care about your feelings.” ― Ben Shapiro
Most charts I have seen give age, but I think that is largely a proxy figure for other risk factors, such as overweight, or heart conditions, of respiratory problems.
I've been sitting in my hands waiting for one of our more critical thinkers to think "hold on a tick. What's an economic think tank doing publishing a medical declaration" and then google American Institute for Economic Research (publishers of the "declaration") to find out their ideology.
I'll make it easy. In short: Republican Economic think tank that folks like the Koch Brothers help fund.
Other than stating there are no cites to medical research supporting the declaration, need I say more?
Wrong yet again, the pattern continues. Do you even research anything before so willingly spouting things that are not factual? It's Libertarian, not Republican. Does a leftist addled mind know the difference between the two parties? It's considered right center and rated high for accuracy of information.
And go ahead and provide any information that shows the Koch Brothers donate to AIER. You can't. You just like to try to look like you know what your are talking about. But you always come up short on facts and it's a distinct and reoccurring pattern. You better check your broom cause you been crashing and burning on facts ALOT.
“Facts don't care about your feelings.” ― Ben Shapiro
University of your mum, - OK, not the 'important' signatories, but those were thin on the ground (most scientists seem to dissagree with the premise) and that lot did pad things out rather well.
That's what a Theoretical Epidemiologist does - pad things out with theory.
If people would just socially distance and wear a damned mask, the lockdowns wouldn't need to be so long. Absolutely they're devastating, but people in denial (or bleating about their constitutional rights) are making this last a lot longer than it should.
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep" "Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
The ‘think-tank’ behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch, reports Nafeez Ahmed.
Documents seen by Byline Times confirm that the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a ‘herd immunity’ approach to the COVID-19 pandemic has been sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries.
On 3 October 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian free-market think-tank in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, hosted a private gathering of scientists, economists and journalists to discuss responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them was the distinguished Oxford University epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta, among the most vocal proponents of a ‘herd immunity’ strategy.
The Great Barrington Declaration, after the town in which it was created, was drafted by Gupta with two other top US scientists, Professor Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University and Stanford Fellow Jay Bhattacharya. The Declaration itself – which calls for only the elderly and vulnerable to be quarantined while encouraging young people to contract the virus – was signed by an initial batch of some 35 scientists.
As of the time of writing, the Declaration claims to be signed by over 5,000 ‘Medical & Public Health Scientists’ and 11,267 ‘Medical Practitioners’, along with over 155,000 members of the general public.
The claim that “thousands of scientists” are supporting the Barrington Declaration was reported far and wide by major media outlets from the BBC to the Daily Mail. But when I attempted to check how the signatory process works, I discovered that there was no vetting procedure in place for signatories – anybody could become a confirmed signatory of the Declaration and be categorised as a scientist or medic by falsifying entry information and ticking a box. By experimenting with the process myself, I was able to add myself as a signatory under the ‘Medical & Public Health Scientists’ category and received an automated email confirming this.
Jeffrey A. Tucker, AIER’s editorial director, responded on Twitter claiming that: “Actually admins have been beating back fraudsters from the beginning. It’s not easy to manage a website with millions of views ongoing, plus dealing with trolls.”
But when I asked him exactly how AIER was “checking and vetting signatories” and whether they were contacting people to verify their claimed identities and scientific credentials, he failed to respond.
For a document that is supposed to represent an emerging body of scientific opinion, the lack of vetting is surprising – and indicates that the Great Barrington Declaration is less a genuinely independent scientific enterprise, than a propaganda project.
The AIER did not simply host the event which produced the Declaration, but is also the registered domain name owner of the website publishing the Declaration, gbdeclaration.org.
Koch Connection
Corporate records filed with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) confirm that the AIER operates as part of a Koch-funded network of climate science deniers who see environmental regulation as a threat to its vision of unfettered, deregulated markets.
The latest available IRS documents reveal that in 2018, the AIER received $68,100 for “General Operating Support” from the Charles Koch Foundation, which acts on behalf of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch.
Through their various foundations and other entities, Charles and his brother, the late David Koch, are well-known for being among the world’s biggest founders of climate science denial.
You just like to try to look like you know what your are talking about. But you always come up short on facts and it's a distinct and reoccurring pattern. You better check your broom cause you been crashing and burning on facts ALOT.
Be nice.
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep" "Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
I stand corrected a Koch did donate $68,100. Out of AIER's 185 million in assets per their posted financials. My God it's true the Koch's are calling the shot's at AIER donating huge sums like that. LOL
“Facts don't care about your feelings.” ― Ben Shapiro
Listening to the news this morning (BBC) I heard one scientist, I didn't catch his name, saying that, if followed, the Barrington Declaration amounted to deliberate culling of the old and sick; he went on to some name-calling. That struck me as a bit of an extreme reaction to a paper he dissagreed with.
So I went looking for the reactions of other scientists. All articles were disparaging, some pointing out the authors' lack of published modelling, but this one seemed both more moderate, and full of respected scientists. So here it is:
expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’
An open letter has been published, arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’.
Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, said:
“Having watched their video and read their Declaration, I can understand their concerns and their aims, but they are not very clear about how they will carry out their proposed ‘Focused Protection’.
“The interviewer gave a very simple example of a grandparent looking after a school-age child, highlighting one household member (the child) who would not be expected to suffer from COVID-19 much, who would attend a large gathering with other young people on a daily basis, but where the other household member (the grandparent) should be ‘protected’.
“But the reply from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in the video was not really understandable and had no practical details of how this would be done.
“And if this fails to prevent influenza infection of the vulnerable groups, we have antivirals like oseltamivir and zanamivir that we can give to anyone who has influenza or in whom we even just suspect influenza (as empirical therapy during the influenza season) to reduce the severity of their illness.
“But we don’t yet have these additional ‘tools’ (the vaccine and antivirals) for COVID-19, to assist with this ‘Focused Protection’ approach.
“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”
Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, said:
“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”
Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton, said:
“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.
“Those behind the Barrington Declaration are advocates of herd immunity within a population. They state that “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal”, with the idea being that somehow the vulnerable of society will be protected from ensuing transmission of a dangerous virus. It is a very bad idea. We saw that even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that, and 20-30% of the UK population would be classed as vulnerable to a severe COVID-19 infection. Around 8% of the UK population has some level of immunity to this novel coronavirus, and that immunity will likely wane over time and be insufficient to prevent a second infection. A strategy for herd immunity would also promote further inequalities across society, for example across the Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The declaration also ignores the emerging burdens of ‘long COVID’. We know that many people, even younger populations who suffered from an initially mild illness, are suffering from longer-term consequences of a COVID-19 infection.
“Independent SAGE are among the many scientists who have eloquently pointed out1 the many reasons why these initiatives are ultimately harmful and misleading as to the scientific evidence base. There are countries who are managing the pandemic relatively well, including South Korea and New Zealand, and their strategies do not include simply letting the virus run wild whilst hoping that the asthmatic community and the elderly can find somewhere to hide for 12 months. They have a proactive approach to ‘test and trace’ to reduce the impact of new outbreaks, and good public health messaging from the government to their populations. Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health.
Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:
“The Barrington Declaration, as per the recent letter to UK government CMOs, seeks to reduce the impact of interventions taken to combat the SARS-CoV2 pandemic upon healthcare systems and the most disadvantaged amongst our population. This is clearly a well-intentioned movement, and nobody can deny that COVID-19 has highlighted inequality and instability across a great many aspects of our society.
“Sadly, focusing on the pandemic rather than the cultures and environments in which it arose ignores long-standing issues in society that existed prior to, and likely long after the pandemic has passed. Moreover, the means by which the signatories propose to achieve their aim relies upon achieving so-called “herd immunity”, which at best is currently a theoretical concept for SARS-CoV2. By contrast, societal restrictions combined with effective rapid testing measures have effectively curtailed the spread of the virus in several countries.
“The signatories propose that members of the population deemed well enough to endure infection should be allowed to operate normally, enjoying full access to work, education, the arts, hospitality etc. By contrast, those deemed “vulnerable” to severe COVID-19 are to be somehow protected from the infection. This approach has profound ethical, logistical and scientific flaws:
“Ethically, history has taught us that the notion of segregating society, even perhaps with good initial intentions, usually ends in suffering. For want of a better term, the “vulnerable” amongst us come from all walks of life, have families and friends and deserve, fundamentally, to be treated equally amongst society. It is interesting to note that the signatories are not proposing that BAME or other COVID-susceptible groups be segregated along similar lines.
“Logistically, how on earth are we to both identify those at risk and effectively separate them from the rest of society? Basing risk primarily upon risk of death completely ignores the profound morbidity associated with the pandemic, including what we now term as “long COVID”, plus the criteria by which one or more risk factors might predispose towards severe disease remain both uncertain and incredibly diverse – we have only lived with this virus for ten months, we simply do not understand it well enough to attempt this with any surety.
“Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity. What then, might be the cost of attempting the strategy proposed in this document?
“We are all exhausted by the pandemic and are rightly angry at the notion of potentially enduring a second round of local and national lockdowns or other restrictions. However, we must not conflate the failures of certain governments to capitalise upon the sacrifices people make during lockdowns with these measures themselves being ineffective. Policies are enacted by those that govern, are multifactorial in nature, and so do not mean that contributing strategies are themselves flawed. However, the dangers of seizing upon dissatisfaction and political failings to support what amounts to little more than an ideology, runs the risk of inaction and an ensuing limbo of cyclical epidemic waves of infection for the foreseeable future.”
Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading, said:
“There is no current evidence about COVID-19 to suggest that a long-term passive approach has any merit. Despite the huge advances in our understand of the coronavirus and resulting infection, we don’t know that herd immunity is even possible. Natural, lasting, protective immunity to the disease would be needed and we don’t know how effective or long-lasting people’s post-infection immunity will be. Just to find out whether this is possible, would be to consign a great many more thousands of people to their deaths, and many more would be left suffering from the effects of long covid, which even less is well understood.
“There is also the fact that we haven’t properly got to grips with how to shield vulnerable populations adequately and neither do we have the capacity in the UK to test for asymptomatic infections. Furthermore, we’re also still only scratching the surface of how the virus is transmitted.”
Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford, said:
“The main signatories include many accomplished scientists and I read it with interest. I will not be signing it however.
“At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial. The declaration identifies the elderly and vulnerable to be at far far greater risk from covid-19 than the bulk of the population, an established fact. I do not think anyone disagrees that the disruption to education, social life and the economy have been very hard to bear and that they particularly disadvantage the young, the group least likely to suffer serious ill effects from covid-19.
“The declaration is correct, that once herd immunity is reached in the non-elderly population this will protect the elderly by greatly reducing the general viral spread. A vaccine would be a short cut.
“The authors have neglected to point out that our ability to treat covid19 is greatly improving due to scientific and medical breakthroughs, a point that strengthens arguments for their policy by reducing the toll of the virus.
“That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers. It would help to consider the following points:
“We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.
“The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.
“A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?
“From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.
“With respect to the UK, there are a limited number of critical care beds. Is there an estimate of the risk of overwhelming the NHS and ending up with triage (thus rising fatalities)?
“I agree wholeheartedly that protecting the most vulnerable will reduce deaths. We knew this by April and to my knowledge everyone advocates this. However, the continuing number of deaths in the USA and the rise in infections in the UK amongst this very group seen in ONS surveys would indicate this is hard to achieve. The declaration thus risks the same error we have seen with the UK’s track trace and isolate scheme – one can promise a scheme that is very easy to describe but is hard to deliver. Whilst actual implementation maybe beyond the expertise of the signatories, when scientists offer advice in a public forum it would help if they could be clear with the public about the risks of failure or error. The declaration is silent about what happens if we resume normal life (the easy bit) and fail, for whatever reason, to protect the vulnerable (the hard part). Further, the declaration is silent as to what success in shielding looks like? 100 % protection is impossible to achieve. How many deaths and how many life changing events will result if we are 80% or 60% successful? A more cautious policy might be government demonstrating that it can shield the old and vulnerable under current restrictions, as measured by the infection prevalence in this age group. These data would give a best case estimate of the toll of the policy. With this information we could move to resume normal life in stages fully aware of the consequences whilst continuing to monitor viral spread in the elderly.
“It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does. In this pandemic, which has been such a disaster, it is clear that there have been many mistakes by medics, scientists and politicians. Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.
“I would support the signatories giving their full consideration to all the scientific issues surrounding their prescription so that they might give more actionable policy advice.”
Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent, said:
“The actions taken to control COVID-19 have clearly had significant physical and mental health impacts across the population, often with the most disadvantaged suffering these consequences most acutely. The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”
I stand corrected a Koch did donate $68,100. Out of AIER's 185 million in assets per their posted financials. My God it's true the Koch's are calling the shot's at AIER donating huge sums like that. LOL
You are a bit naive if you think what they say they donated
Was the true figure that they actually did donate....!!!
One way or another........
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖
I stand corrected a Koch did donate $68,100. Out of AIER's 185 million in assets per their posted financials. My God it's true the Koch's are calling the shot's at AIER donating huge sums like that. LOL
You are a bit naive if you think what they say they donated
Was the true figure that they actually did donate....!!!
One way or another........
Do you have even the faintest idea about federal tax laws in the US? You do understand money is all transferred electronically these days and traceable right? Or are you still taking sheep as payment in your country? It's easier to hide a sheep payment. LOL
“Facts don't care about your feelings.” ― Ben Shapiro
How do you think these multi multi millionaires get away without paying tax.....
Do you really think they wouldn't just donate a million or whatever they wanted to donate if they wanted to. Get out of woo woo land, everything isn't a conspiracy.
“Facts don't care about your feelings.” ― Ben Shapiro
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
ViQueen24 wrote:
