The Great Barrington Declaration.

Can't see a thread for this anywhere and having read it I think it could support a thread directly addressing it. Its getting invoked and dismissed in passing I other threads and I'm not sure either side is doing the issue justice. I certainly have a few thngs to ask about it and a few to say about it but not this morning. In the mean time here it is for your delectation.


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 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.
 
Can't see a thread for this anywhere and having read it I think it could support a thread directly addressing it. Its getting invoked and dismissed in passing I other threads and I'm not sure either side is doing the issue justice. I certainly have a few thngs to ask about it and a few to say about it but not this morning. In the mean time here it is for your delectation.



Ok...
Question: What lockdown policies?
Lockdown ended the middle of last year.
 
I have a question about herd immunity with a new mutating virus, does the virus (as is seemingly happening) also have to mutate to less aggressive mutation and the two balance?

If we prevent its spread, is there a chance it will not mutate fast enough so the balance will take longer or can we rely on the Indians (and hopefully the Chinese) to be somewhat decimated in the hope they will force the virus to mutate?
 
I think the key thing to remember is that the Great Barrington Declaration was drawn up to address an earlier phase of Governmental response to the pandemic, and it isn’t really relevant now.
 

Truxx

LE
The authors of the "Barrington Declaration" need to read "The Pale Rider" by Laura Spinney.

Although an alternative title would be "Now That's What I Call a Pandemic"

As @lastwalt rightly says, this is a declaration overtaken by evens (events oddly that seem to have addressed many of the areas of concern in the declaration). Some were even present at the start of all this (eg care home direction) That it was roundly ignored by some is worthy of a declaration in its own right.
 
The important thing is how they were immediatly monstered by 'the great and the good' and even are still being so in the US by the likes of 'Dr' Facui. Concerned leading experts in their fields being rubbished by third rate establishment commentators is a warning bell to all.

They hit all the right notes and will be treated very kindly by history.
 
Last edited:

Blogg

LE


Short answer: yes


"Not only has there been no acknowledgment of the missed opportunity of focused protection at the institutional level — and no apology to the authors of the statement, victims of a vicious smearing campaign — but even now the GBD is dismissed by academics and epidemiologists such as Woolhouse, even though the focused protection policy he advocates is drawn from it."
 


Short answer: yes


"Not only has there been no acknowledgment of the missed opportunity of focused protection at the institutional level — and no apology to the authors of the statement, victims of a vicious smearing campaign — but even now the GBD is dismissed by academics and epidemiologists such as Woolhouse, even though the focused protection policy he advocates is drawn from it."


I have to say having read it it should have been part of the policy continuum and employed prior to full lockdown but with the advantage of hindsight it wouldnt have been the last stop on the line and we would have had full lockdown at some point anyway (although perhaps for a significantly shorter time).

Also I'm heartened to see the thread isn't in the Hole and people are engaging with it. I hit publish last night and immediately thought "Should I have slept on this?"
 

Blogg

LE
I have to say having read it it should have been part of the policy continuum and employed prior to full lockdown but with the advantage of hindsight it wouldnt have been the last stop on the line and we would have had full lockdown at some point anyway (although perhaps for a significantly shorter time).

Also I'm heartened to see the thread isn't in the Hole and people are engaging with it. I hit publish last night and immediately thought "Should I have slept on this?"

It was nothing more than focused protection concept which is now being adopted

But some saw it as a threat to their chosen lockdown and vaccine strategy, so decided to trash it via lies and smears whilst the Google and Facebooks of this world obligingly classed it as disinformation

One of the more grossly stupid decisions, which are inevitably now being revealed

 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
It was a very political influenced paper.
Funded by a U.S. Libertarian think tank to very much promote libertarian values.
It talked a lot about the likes of protection for vulnerable without either identifying them or how it would be achieved especially when they dismiss masks and distancing.

To me, there's always been a health v wealth argument in the treatment of this pandemic. This very much is pro wealth, i.e. the economy rather than number of deaths.

The counter argument to Barrington is that there would have been far more waves and a lot more deaths.

The John Snow memorandum was sent to the Lancet to counter the arguments put forward.

"This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable. This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence."
 
It was a very political influenced paper.
Funded by a U.S. Libertarian think tank to very much promote libertarian values.
It talked a lot about the likes of protection for vulnerable without either identifying them or how it would be achieved especially when they dismiss masks and distancing.

To me, there's always been a health v wealth argument in the treatment of this pandemic. This very much is pro wealth, i.e. the economy rather than number of deaths.

The counter argument to Barrington is that there would have been far more waves and a lot more deaths.

The John Snow memorandum was sent to the Lancet to counter the arguments put forward.

"This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable. This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence."
If I remember correctly, talk of “herd immunity“ around the time of the Great Barrington Declaration assumed that something like 60% of the population would need to have antibodies (ie have been infected, there being no vaccine) and the body count at that level would have been very high. I think that the “herd immunity” threshold has since been revised upwards to something like 90% as more has been learned about the virus.
 

GDog

War Hero
If I remember correctly, talk of “herd immunity“ around the time of the Great Barrington Declaration assumed that something like 60% of the population would need to have antibodies (ie have been infected, there being no vaccine) and the body count at that level would have been very high. I think that the “herd immunity” threshold has since been revised upwards to something like 90% as more has been learned about the virus.
Herd Immunity was raised to higher levels by more contagious variants as the virus mutated, it wasn't due to learning new information (save for the obvious - discovery and assessment of said variants).
 

GDog

War Hero
The pandemic response was always going to be a political issue.

I supported and signed the GBD, broadly because I believed the costs of the prevailing lockdown orthodoxy were too high and those costs were studiously ignored. I also suspected that the lockdown policy would ultimately amount to trying to hold back the sea with sandcastles and fail anyway.

What lockdown achieved and whether it was worth it will be subject to eternal debate.

What I won't forget is Google's behaviour - removing the GBD from search results in favour of a list of one-sided 'news' articles that sought to pillory it.

Censorship is the last resort of the intellectually lazy.
 

Blogg

LE
If you think the GBD was "controversial" ( it wasn't, just a pragmatic suggested response to the prevailing situation) you should see some of the moonbat stuff floating around.

Conflating the two is useful for some.

(And I do really, really hope that what is here is total and utter bollocks)

 
If you think the GBD was "controversial" ( it wasn't, just a pragmatic suggested response to the prevailing situation) you should see some of the moonbat stuff floating around.

Conflating the two is useful for some.

(And I do really, really hope that what is here is total and utter bollocks)


Whatever anyone may call it, I wouldn’t have described the GBD as pragmatic. It described a set of very general aspirations without any details as to how those aspirations could be achieved. That is the polar opposite of pragmatic.
 

Latest Threads

Top