Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

The Great Barrington Declaration

  • 07-10-2020 2:35pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    A number of scientists and epidemiologists met recently to prepare the Great Barrington Declaration. They argue that young low-risk people should be allowed to resume normal life immediately and build herd immunity. The focus should be on protecting the elderly and those who are vulnerable.

    Here's a link to the declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/

    There are a number of articles online about the Great Barrington Declaration. Here's one from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

    Do you think it's the right approach to take?


«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 979 ✭✭✭ Thierry12


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Do you think it's the right approach to take?

    Of course it is


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,349 ✭✭✭ Jim_Hodge




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,956 ✭✭✭ Allinall


    As far as I can see, for every group of scientists that advocate one approach, there is another who advocate for the opposite.

    They're all only guessing though, as we have never really experienced anything like this before.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,640 ✭✭✭✭ Inquitus


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Do you think it's the right approach to take?

    No, we still do not know enough about the long term effects of even a mild dose and the potential life changing impact that could have to young people down the line. If we could clarify that and be sure it was incredibly rare, then this might have some basis, but with this big potential unknown it's not a good idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭ xhomelezz


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    A number of scientists and epidemiologists met recently to prepare the Great Barrington Declaration. They argue that young low-risk people should be allowed to resume normal life immediately and build herd immunity. The focus should be on protecting the elderly and those who are vulnerable.

    Here's a link to the declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/

    There are a number of articles online about the Great Barrington Declaration. Here's one from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

    Do you think it's the right approach to take?

    Personally think it's unworkable. Is there any step by step how to do it? Any time frame? How many of low risk will refuse to get infected voluntarily? Any plans for hospitals how to deal with it? How to protect elderly and vulnerable?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭ Johnny0Toole


    "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"

    Ok, that's fair enough and they proclaim themselves to be experts, so do it. Explain how it would be done. Then it's worth looking at. At the moment it's just a grandiose empty statement.

    The only concrete suggestion I'm seeing in the declaration is that care homes be staffed by people with immunity (which at the moment is theoretical, and it's very possible those previously infected could again carry and spread the virus).


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭ Andrewf20


    Delighted to read about this. I reckon by Christmas corona will be viewed in a much less threatening light and hopefully most of the media and government drama will dissipate.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,205 Mod ✭✭✭✭ hmmm


    Allinall wrote: »
    As far as I can see, for every group of scientists that advocate one approach, there is another who advocate for the opposite.

    They're all only guessing though, as we have never really experienced anything like this before.
    A small group of scientists are advocating to let it rip through parts of the population. A much much larger group of scientists, including most of those with expertise of these sort of epidemics are saying it will not work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 31,637 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    Allinall wrote: »
    As far as I can see, for every group of scientists that advocate one approach, there is another who advocate for the opposite.

    They're all only guessing though, as we have never really experienced anything like this before.
    There is no one right approach, apart from maybe superfast and highly accurate testing. Scientists are always looking for a simple complete solution. There are things that can work in certain cultures and a few that might work universally but we are still very much in the dark about this virus.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    xhomelezz wrote: »
    Personally think it's unworkable. Is there any step by step how to do it? Any time frame? How many of low risk will refuse to get infected voluntarily? Any plans for hospitals how to deal with it? How to protect elderly and vulnerable?

    If I remember correctly, they said it would take three months to build up the required level of immunity. They also say something that I think is important, and that Lord Sumption said a few months ago, that is that those who are elderly or vulnerable should be allowed to choose whether they want to be shielded or protected.

    Dr Sunetra Gupta, Dr Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff discuss the declaration in the following interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,516 ✭✭✭✭ titan18


    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other? No, imo, so it's about as useful as the magic money tree


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    hmmm wrote: »
    A small group of scientists are advocating to let it rip through parts of the population. A much much larger group of scientists, including most of those with expertise of these sort of epidemics are saying it will not work.

    But we can't continue like this. The collateral damage will be enormous. Many eminent epidemiologists and scientists have offered an alternative point of view, and have either been censored or ignored. I am thinking of the likes of Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Knut Wittkowski, and the doctors in the US who argued for using hydroxychloroquine a couple of months ago.

    And we know a lot more about the virus now than we did in March. The numbers of deaths in Ireland are miniscule. The damage being done to health, lives, and the economy is enormous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭ xhomelezz


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, they said it would take three months to build up the required level of immunity. They also say something that I think is important, and that Lord Sumption said a few months ago, that is that those who are elderly or vulnerable should be allowed to choose whether they want to be shielded or protected.

    Dr Sunetra Gupta, Dr Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff discuss the declaration in the following interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE

    Three months???? That's gonna take some amount of parties, assuming you'll get enough of participants. In the meantime you'll def overrun hospitals, cuz some percentage of the young and safe ones will end up on hospital beds. Anyway I'm sorry, still unworkable. Don't even need to watch YouTube.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    titan18 wrote: »
    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other? No, imo, so it's about as useful as the magic money tree

    But life is about taking risks. The purpose of life is not the avoidance of death. Sensible precautions such as hand washing should be enough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,194 ✭✭✭✭ Strumms


    titan18 wrote: »
    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other? No, imo, so it's about as useful as the magic money tree

    This, you’d be operating with half a brain if you thought possible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    xhomelezz wrote: »
    Three months???? That's gonna take some amount of parties, assuming you'll get enough of participants. In the meantime you'll def overrun hospitals, cuz some percentage of the young and safe ones will end up on hospital beds. Anyway I'm sorry, still unworkable. Don't even need to watch YouTube.

    But consider that there was already a level of immunity in the population from other coronaviruses, and then consider that that level of immunity has increased by people becoming infected. I'm not sure whether they meant the US when they said three months. That's why I posted the link to the interview for people to watch. I watched it a few days ago, so don't really remember.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,332 ✭✭✭ Charles Babbage


    Allinall wrote: »
    As far as I can see, for every group of scientists that advocate one approach, there is another who advocate for the opposite.


    yes, but for every group of scientists with this approach there are 50 or 100 who advocate the opposite.
    There are always some people who will oppose anything.
    They're all only guessing though, as we have never really experienced anything like this before.

    They are not "guessing", the honest ones (not involved in this declaration) are assessing the incomplete information about this virus as best they can.

    The Met office are not "guessing" tomorrow's weather, they are using all the information they have to make a scientific prediction of the weather, this may not prove to be entirely accurate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    yes, but for every group of scientists with this approach there are 50 or 100 who advocate the opposite.
    There are always some people who will oppose anything.



    They are not "guessing", the honest ones (not involved in this declaration) are assessing the incomplete information about this virus as best they can.

    The Met office are not "guessing" tomorrow's weather, they are using all the information they have to make a scientific prediction of the weather, this may not prove to be entirely accurate.

    Why do you say that the scientists involved in the declaration are not honest? They explain in the interview I linked to that they examined the data and that the current approach is disastrous and causing terrible damage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭ xhomelezz


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    But consider that there was already a level of immunity in the population from other coronaviruses, and then consider that that level of immunity has increased by people becoming infected. I'm not sure whether they meant the US when they said three months. That's why I posted the link to the interview for people to watch. I watched it a few days ago, so don't really remember.

    Don't think immunity from other coronaviruses matter. Anyway mate, gonna leave this thread alone. Pretty sure you'll get plenty of audience who will agree with the posted plan, but I'm not. There's plenty going for herd immunity as it is and we are still not there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭ Nermal


    titan18 wrote: »
    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other? No, imo, so it's about as useful as the magic money tree

    Not completely, no.

    But the current restrictions don't completely eliminate the danger to higher risk people either, do they?

    Why do you apply a higher hurdle to this plan than to our current one?
    "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"

    Ok, that's fair enough and they proclaim themselves to be experts, so do it. Explain how it would be done. Then it's worth looking at. At the moment it's just a grandiose empty statement.

    As above, double standards. You expect a perfectly-formed, universally applicable plan from a small group with no serious funding. The opposing idea of suppression has had the resources of nation-states poured into it for six months, and the fruit of that amounts to 'pay people to sit at home twiddling their thumbs'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,130 ✭✭✭ monkeybutter


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    But life is about taking risks. The purpose of life is not the avoidance of death. Sensible precautions such as hand washing should be enough.




    you only have life while you avoid death


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭ eleventh


    titan18 wrote:
    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other?
    It should be up to everyone to decide themselves. It should not be any government or authority deciding for them.

    People who decide they are high risk could live at level 5+ and be supported in doing so.
    People who are low risk (as chosen by themselves, regardless of age etc) are free to live normally(level 0).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 979 ✭✭✭ Thierry12


    titan18 wrote: »
    Can you completely separate lower risk people and higher risk people so that none of them are in contact with each other? No, imo, so it's about as useful as the magic money tree

    Only way it can be done is to ban Covid people from hosiptals

    Live by the sword, die by the sword


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    you only have life while you avoid death

    But existing isn't the same as living. Many of the elderly would prefer to live and enjoy the time they have left on the planet. As would a lot of people who are not elderly, but who may be at risk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭ Johnny0Toole


    One of the major proponents of this is Sunetra Gupta, who published a model in March that suggested up to 68% of the population could have already been infected. I would take any proposals from her with a pinch of salt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭ Johnny0Toole


    Nermal wrote: »
    Not completely, no.

    But the current restrictions don't completely eliminate the danger to higher risk people either, do they?

    Why do you apply a higher hurdle to this plan than to our current one?



    As above, double standards. You expect a perfectly-formed, universally applicable plan from a small group with no serious funding. The opposing idea of suppression has had the resources of nation-states poured into it for six months, and the fruit of that amounts to 'pay people to sit at home twiddling their thumbs'.

    Where did I look for a perfectly formed plan? I would just like to see the outline of a plan with detail on the measures involved. They are proposing an idea but not explaining the important part. How? Then it can be judged.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    Where did I look for a perfectly formed plan? I would just like to see the outline of a plan with detail on the measures involved. They are proposing an idea but not explaining the important part. How? Then it can be judged.

    The doctors discuss the declaration in the following interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭ Dionaibh


    One of the major proponents of this is Sunetra Gupta, who published a model in March that suggested up to 68% of the population could have already been infected. I would take any proposals from her with a pinch of salt.

    And Neil Ferguson's model predicted millions of deaths, so should people trust his judgement and the model that was the basis for the lockdowns?


  • Registered Users Posts: 31,637 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    The doctors discuss the declaration in the following interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE

    BBC summary for those of us who can't be bothered with YouTube.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

    One of its "noble" intentions. Condescension 101.

    "Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered, it says."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,516 ✭✭✭✭ titan18


    eleventh wrote: »
    It should be up to everyone to decide themselves. It should not be any government or authority deciding for them.

    People who decide they are high risk could live at level 5+ and be supported in doing so.
    People who are low risk (as chosen by themselves, regardless of age etc) are free to live normally(level 0).

    HSE have anyone over 60 as high risk. I live at home, and both my parents are over 60. Both my parents still work. One in a school and one in a hospital. Now, at level 5+ (let's say march lockdown), my dad will still go to work as he did back in march and my mom doesn't. The school are now down one employee. If I live my life as normal (back in office, going travelling etc) I put my mom at risk and my dad who works in a hospital at risk, and thus others in the hospital at risk.

    Considering lots of schools and hospitals will have staff over 60, and considering our housing situation lots of people live with those over 60 years old, how do you eliminate that risk?

    If everyone over 60 left the workforce, you'd have a hard time to replace them never mind the ones you who fall into high risk category too


Advertisement