The Great Barrington Declaration

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 3:35pm #1

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?

Thierry12 · 07-10-2020 3:44pm

Dionaibh wrote: »

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

Of course it is

Jim_Hodge · 07-10-2020 3:52pm

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1313733782235680768?s=20

Allinall · 07-10-2020 3:57pm

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.

Inquitus · 07-10-2020 3:58pm

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.

xhomelezz · 07-10-2020 4:03pm

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?

07-10-2020 4:05pm

"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).

Andrewf20 · 07-10-2020 4:16pm

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.

hmmm · 07-10-2020 4:21pm

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.

is_that_so · 07-10-2020 4:22pm

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.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 4:24pm

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

titan18 · 07-10-2020 4:24pm

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

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 4:30pm

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.

xhomelezz · 07-10-2020 4:31pm

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.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 4:31pm

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.

Strumms · 07-10-2020 4:32pm

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.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 4:33pm

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.

Charles Babbage · 07-10-2020 4:35pm

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.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 4:38pm

Charles Babbage wrote: »

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.

xhomelezz · 07-10-2020 4:40pm

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.

Nermal · 07-10-2020 4:51pm

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?

Deleted User wrote: »

"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'.

monkeybutter · 07-10-2020 4:52pm

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

eleventh · 07-10-2020 4:53pm

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).

Thierry12 · 07-10-2020 4:54pm

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

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:08pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

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.

07-10-2020 5:13pm

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.

07-10-2020 5:15pm

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.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

is_that_so · 07-10-2020 5:23pm

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."

titan18 · 07-10-2020 5:24pm

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

Sconsey · 07-10-2020 5:25pm

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.

Where do we draw the line?

,,,maybe we should stop spending money on Covid tests, should we write-off anyone sick with symptoms or just when elderly get sick. The list could go on and on to the point where we get rid of the health service altogether.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:26pm

is_that_so wrote: »

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."

Why's that a bad idea?

But they say it should be up to the person, in this case the retired person, to decide whether they want to shield themselves or not. They emphasise personal choice and responsibility.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:29pm

Sconsey wrote: »

Where do we draw the line?

,,,maybe we should stop spending money on Covid tests, should we write-off anyone sick with symptoms or just when elderly get sick. The list could go on and on to the point where we get rid of the health service altogether.

Healthy people should not be tested. I have never before heard of a healthy person getting tested for a virus. It would be like a healthy person going to the doctor to have a chat. So that's one thing that could be done. But I understand that people have been required by their employer to get tested. I'm not blaming people for getting tested if required by their employer to. But one sees and reeds of people queuing up to get tested who are perfectly healthy.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:32pm

titan18 wrote: »

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

You don't eliminate it, but you try to minimise it. Life is not without risks. We try our best to minimise risk, but we also take risks.

By the way, I'm not commenting on your personal situation. I'm just talking in general about how we reduce risk as opposed to eliminating it.

If I recall correctly, one of the doctors in the interview suggests that people over 60 work from home, if possible. Of course that depends on the type of job.

is_that_so · 07-10-2020 5:32pm

Dionaibh wrote: »

Why's that a bad idea?

But they say it should be up to the person, in this case the retired person, to decide whether they want to shield themselves or not. They emphasise personal choice and responsibility.

Apart from insulting a large chunk of the population most retired people I know would tell me where to go! It's a simplistic Lego brick strategy with the only evidence being the claimed damage that's being done now.

titan18 · 07-10-2020 5:41pm

Dionaibh wrote: »

You don't eliminate it, but you try to minimise it. Life is not without risks. We try our best to minimise risk, but we also take risks.

By the way, I'm not commenting on your personal situation. I'm just talking in general about how we reduce risk as opposed to eliminating it.

If I recall correctly, one of the doctors in the interview suggests that people over 60 work from home, if possible. Of course that depends on the type of job.

Imo, the best way to minimise it is what we're currently doing by everyone sharing the load of reducing contacts. Im pretty anti government and I'm fiscally right wing so prefer low taxes and low public spending, but I'm pretty cool with my taxes here being used to support jobs that can't work as well in a socially reduced world. I know it sucks for the people who've lost their jobs but I'd rather job losses and government taxes being used to support people there than deaths across the country.

If everyone plays their part, we're fine but when people dont, we get higher cases.

Nermal · 07-10-2020 5:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1.full.pdf

The paper presented three scenarios for the UK, with proportions ranging from 36% to 68%. Never trust headlines.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:55pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Apart from insulting a large chunk of the population most retired people I know would tell me where to go! It's a simplistic Lego brick strategy with the only evidence being the claimed damage that's being done now.

I don't think it's insulting. People often help elderly neighbours by getting messages for them.

And, as they say, the retired people who don't want help can get their own messages. They're saying that it should be up to them to decide whether they want to stay at home and shield or not. But if an elderly person wants to stay at home and shield themselves then someone doing their shopping for them makes sense. It's not insulting or patronising. It's either a neighbour does their shopping for them, or they buy online and get it delivered. Same result.

Dionaibh · 07-10-2020 5:59pm

titan18 wrote: »

Imo, the best way to minimise it is what we're currently doing by everyone sharing the load of reducing contacts. Im pretty anti government and I'm fiscally right wing so prefer low taxes and low public spending, but I'm pretty cool with my taxes here being used to support jobs that can't work as well in a socially reduced world. I know it sucks for the people who've lost their jobs but I'd rather job losses and government taxes being used to support people there than deaths across the country.

If everyone plays their part, we're fine but when people dont, we get higher cases.

I too am anti-government and think this is grotesque government overreach.

But those job losses will result in suicides, depression, terrible damage to mental health and wellbeing, and despair. For months now Covid-related deaths have been on the floor, and yet they're still persisting with a strategy based on Neil Ferguson's ridiculous model.

07-10-2020 6:00pm

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1.full.pdf

The paper presented three scenarios for the UK, with proportions ranging from 36% to 68%. Never trust headlines.

Read what I wrote "up to 68%". 36% was also quite clearly nonsense.

Andrewf20 · 07-10-2020 6:01pm

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

Strumms wrote: »

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

But with deaths way lower than last March - May, what level of risk are we talking about here? From what I can see, death numbers in Europe appear to be fairly in line of what's expected for this time of year.

In the meantime, the big unknown is how much death is being creating as a side affect of corona lockdown measures. I saw a UK news article that estimates 75K excess deaths over the next 5 years due to delayed cancer diagnoses, suicide etc. Rough numbers , but still interesting to get an approximated sense of it. There seems to be relatively little dialogue of the impact of corona measures here.

Andrewf20 · 07-10-2020 6:12pm

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

There seems to be some weight behind it:

"Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies. Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society."

"And the declaration has now been signed by nearly 6,000 scientists and medical experts across the globe as well as 50,000 members of the public."

eleventh · 07-10-2020 6:16pm

titan18 wrote: »

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

No-one should be categorised by age, or anything else. People should decide themselves whether they'd rather live as high risk or low.

Your concerns about people leaving jobs in that scenario, depends how many would opt-in to level 5 for several months or more. (I don't think many would).

If one of your family decides they are at high-risk - and therefore wants to live at level 5 for, say 6 months to a year or however long they believe there's a risk - that would mean a separate living space, if the house is big enough to convert and they want to do that, with government support. Otherwise they could move somewhere for 6 months or a year or however long. They are fully supported to move somewhere comfortable where they can have groceries etc delivered.

CalamariFritti · 08-10-2020 7:50am

I listened to their video yesterday morning and found this declaration in the evening through this thread. I just signed it now.

Something has to be done about the current situation.

We acted they way did in March because we didn't know much and predictions by scientists were potentially devastating. We learned much more about this virus since then, especially about its severity and about fatality rates. We're still not at the end of that, but even with the data we have now we can see that early predictions were vastly overestimated. Fatality rates are a tiny fraction of what we predicted and affect the very same demographic that is being affected by other respiratory diseases. This isn't such a new thing and its not that dangerous in comparison either.

Genuine mistake and a good one to make. I'd rather live in a society where we don't gamble with lives.

But like I said, the picture has changed dramatically yet we seem determined to ignore this. A hysterical media empowered by political cowardice supported by a population who has been frightened into a state of anxiety by nonstop fear propaganda does not allow us to see the wood from the trees anymore. This has to stop now before irreversible damage to our society is being done.

I dont really know these people and I am not sure everything they say is 100% correct. I also suspect they may not be your average Guardian reader. These people are not our saviours or the only people in the world who know or anything like that. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong. I believe what they say is fundamentally correct. We are currently way down a rabbit hole and this may help us to get out of it. Thats why I signed this declaration.

I am not asking people to sign. But I am asking people to not shut their minds. This situation is too serious to be led by emotion and fear alone. Watch what they have to say and make up your mind. Please.

Dionaibh · 08-10-2020 8:06am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I listened to their video yesterday morning and found this declaration in the evening through this thread. I just signed it now.

Something has to be done about the current situation.

We acted they way did in March because we didn't know much and predictions by scientists were potentially devastating. We learned much more about this virus since then, especially about its severity and about fatality rates. We're still not at the end of that, but even with the data we have now we can see that early predictions were vastly overestimated. Fatality rates are a tiny fraction of what we predicted and affect the very same demographic that is being affected by other respiratory diseases. This isn't such a new thing and its not that dangerous in comparison either.

Genuine mistake and a good one to make. I'd rather live in a society where we don't gamble with lives.

But like I said, the picture has changed dramatically yet we seem determined to ignore this. A hysterical media empowered by political cowardice supported by a population who has been frightened into a state of anxiety by nonstop fear propaganda does not allow us to see the wood from the trees anymore. This has to stop now before irreversible damage to our society is being done.

I dont really know these people and I am not sure everything they say is 100% correct. I also suspect they may not be your average Guardian reader. These people are not our saviours or the only people in the world who know or anything like that. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong. I believe what they say is fundamentally correct. We are currently way down a rabbit hole and this may help us to get out of it. Thats why I signed this declaration.

I am not asking people to sign. But I am asking people to not shut their minds. This situation is too serious to be led by emotion and fear alone. Watch what they have to say and make up your mind. Please.

Great post.

Professor Gupta says that they put politics aside because they felt it was such an important issue.

I was horrified to discover that an additional 130 million people are at risk of starvation because of lockdowns and the diabolical consequences of them.

I signed it as well, but Johnson rejected it the other day. The Irish and UK governments are not for turning, it seems.

SeaBreezes · 08-10-2020 9:41am

I think any country that has tried this already has:
1) Been unable to protect the vulnerable.
2) Suffered economically
3) Killed or injured many health care workers
4) Had horrific death counts
5) Have STILL not reached herd immunity.

The prob with this approach is:
1) We dont even know if immunity is possible past 6-12 months. This bug isnt even 9 months old yet amd already proven cases of reinfection.

2) Mortality isnt the ONLY way to measure this bug, it looks like it damages the immune system each time.

3) Its been proven to attack the testes in moderate and severe cases with a 50% reduction in sperm count. Wont know for another 6 months if that is reversibe or permanent. (I guess no more kids for Boris!)

4) It also attacks other organs, heart,kidneys,lungs,brain.

5) Its not like this is our only option. NZ, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, China, South Africa ALL managed to bring it under control without throwing their vulnerable under the bus, why cant we?

paw patrol · 08-10-2020 9:51am

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.

the larger numbers doesn't mean anything.Scientists aren't any nobler than the rest of us and they have bills to pay. And there are vert few Tony Stark characters about who are independently well off to speak freely.

What are the risks of speaking out?

We see here in ireland the risk of being a dissenter to the state message.
Doctors are being ostracised and lose their job.
Some of the Students of UCD tried to have a Professor sacked because she spoke out against government guidelines.

As somebody said recently (name escapes me) speaking against the status quo in medicine has always had huge ramification and penalties.

Science should be about being wrong and finding the truth but covid has shown it's become religious and you dare not question the mainstream view.

Dionaibh · 08-10-2020 10:03am

paw patrol wrote: »

the larger numbers doesn't mean anything.Scientists aren't any nobler than the rest of us and they have bills to pay. And there are vert few Tony Stark characters about who are independently well off to speak freely.

What are the risks of speaking out?

We see here in ireland the risk of being a dissenter to the state message.
Doctors are being ostracised and lose their job.
Some of the Students of UCD tried to have a Professor sacked because she spoke out against government guidelines.

As somebody said recently (name escapes me) speaking against the status quo in medicine has always had huge ramification and penalties.

Science should be about being wrong and finding the truth but covid has shown it's become religious and you dare not question the mainstream view.

But I wonder is that risk specific to Ireland, and maybe to the UK as well, which are both highly and post-propagandised countries. I thought from the beginning that this was the worst time, for specific reasons, to have a pandemic. The specific reasons I'm referring to are the internet, which means 24/7 news and fear, and social media (also the internet), which means 24/7 news and fear.

Ellie2008 · 08-10-2020 10:07am

paw patrol wrote: »

the larger numbers doesn't mean anything.Scientists aren't any nobler than the rest of us and they have bills to pay. And there are vert few Tony Stark characters about who are independently well off to speak freely.

What are the risks of speaking out?

We see here in ireland the risk of being a dissenter to the state message.
Doctors are being ostracised and lose their job.
Some of the Students of UCD tried to have a Professor sacked because she spoke out against government guidelines.

As somebody said recently (name escapes me) speaking against the status quo in medicine has always had huge ramification and penalties.

Science should be about being wrong and finding the truth but covid has shown it's become religious and you dare not question the mainstream view.

I’m not a scientist but I think that declaration is overly simplistic for all the reasons others have highlighted.

However, I think a level 5 is looking and I think there is a serious democratic failure at present in that the consequences of this are not being currently debated in full detail.

I disagree with the fact that dissenting voices are being silenced without debate. Well it appears to me that is the case.

Dionaibh · 08-10-2020 10:10am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I think any country that has tried this already has:
1) Been unable to protect the vulnerable.
2) Suffered economically
3) Killed or injured many health care workers
4) Had horrific death counts
5) Have STILL not reached herd immunity.

The prob with this approach is:
1) We dont even know if immunity is possible past 6-12 months. This bug isnt even 9 months old yet amd already proven cases of reinfection.

2) Mortality isnt the ONLY way to measure this bug, it looks like it damages the immune system each time.

3) Its been proven to attack the testes in moderate and severe cases with a 50% reduction in sperm count. Wont know for another 6 months if that is reversibe or permanent. (I guess no more kids for Boris!)

4) It also attacks other organs, heart,kidneys,lungs,brain.

5) Its not like this is our only option. NZ, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, China, South Africa ALL managed to bring it under control without throwing their vulnerable under the bus, why cant we?

A further 130 million people risk starving to death in the world because of all of this. 25% of young Britons have contemplated suicide since this began. 1 in 4 in the US in August, I believe.

What's going on in Melbourne is horrifying. I don't think Australia is an example to follow. I read an article a few months ago by a Polish man living in Melbourne. He wrote that Melbourne reminded him of, and was possibly worse then, Communist Poland. Most of the Polish people who commented on the article agreed with him.

The Great Barrington Declaration

Comments