Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great Barrington Declaration

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Brand new virus.
    Never seen before. If it does anything like HPV does, we dont know.
    In fact we know nothing about what it can do long term.

    I think I would rather not get it than get it with no symptoms.
    Since we know nothing about its long term effects

    I had it and didn't even notice. For the vast majority of people it's a mild virus.


  • Options
    #63
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Cordell wrote: »
    6000 signed the declaration, do they also count signatures of people that don't agree? Of course not.
    Are they accountable in any way shape of form for their recommendations? Of course not.

    This is the perfect example of confirmation bias and echo chamber, I would trust NPHET and the government a lot more, at least there is a level of debate, not a bunch of people that grouped together isolating themselves from any dissenting opinion.

    Are the people who have, through their lockdown policy, put 130 million more people at risk of starving to death accountable for their recommendations?

    What's this debate you speak of? I haven't noticed any.


  • Options
    #64
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    https://twitter.com/gbdeclaration

    They have a Twitter page, in case anyone's interested.


  • Options
    #65
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    These dangerous radicals need to be silenced


  • Options
    #66
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,419 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    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?

    It's happening whether we like it or not and every Govt is going down that route, whether they say it or not.

    Only difference is how they control the spread, we are slowing it down to manageable levels.

    Lockdown is a controlled burn, no lock down is a conflagration that would devastate the economy for a decade.

    This isn't ideal but it just has to be better than the alternative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Danzy wrote: »
    It's happening whether we like it or not and every Govt is going down that route, whether they say it or not.

    Only difference is how they control the spread, we are slowing it down to manageable levels.

    If only that were true. In the UK they're locking parts of the country down and constantly threatening more lockdowns. Ireland will soon lock down (level 5). But maybe it's the case in other countries.


  • Options
    #68
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    These dangerous radicals need to be silenced

    Should the people who have, through their recommendations, put 130 million more people at risk of starving to death be silenced as well?


  • Options
    #69
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,457 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Cordell wrote: »
    6000 signed the declaration, do they also count signatures of people that don't agree? Of course not.
    Are they accountable in any way shape of form for their recommendations? Of course not.

    This is the perfect example of confirmation bias and echo chamber, I would trust NPHET and the government a lot more, at least there is a level of debate, not a bunch of people that grouped together isolating themselves from any dissenting opinion.

    Are you after forgetting the sarcasm tags?


  • Options
    #70
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Should the people who have, through their recommendations, put 130 million more people at risk of starving to death be silenced as well?
    No. They are our betters. Their will be done, Amen.


  • Options
    #71
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    25% of young Britons have contemplated suicide since this began. 1 in 4 in the US in August, I believe.

    I'm going to be unpopular here but that's proof if ever it was needed that the younger generation are unable to handle jack sh1t.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Cordell


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    Are you after forgetting the sarcasm tags?

    No, I was quite serious. While not a big supporter of strict lockdown myself, I still have the common sense to trust the ones that are more qualified than me, and also in a position of responsibility. This declaration is no more than a political opinion piece, not backed by any study, or any scientifically evidence. Why would you trust them over NPHET? Just because it happens to match your opinion? That's what's called confirmation bias, when you cherry pick only the arguments that confirms your opinion even when they come from less trusted sources.


  • Options
    #73
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    I repeat, every country who let it rip suffered MORE economically and with crazy mortality rates and this virus is only warming up.

    Not sure thats entirely true. NZ will see its worst ever recession of 12.2% due to strict lockdown:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/new-zealand-in-deepest-ever-recession-due-to-covid-19-slump-1.4357295

    Spain with big lock downs saw a 18% GDP drop which was the biggest drop in Europe.

    And Sweden will out perform its nordic neighbours and others you mention with an expected fall of only 4%:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/06/swedish-economy-dodges-covid-bullet-says-danske-bank/


  • Options
    #74
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm going to be unpopular here but that's proof if ever it was needed that the younger generation are unable to handle jack sh1t.

    I’m not surprised in the U.K. Zero hour contracts, no prospects of homeownership, Brexit taking away their only viable means of escape, austerity, spiralling rents etc etc etc. Some parts of the NHS depending on the postcode are what the HSE would be like if a nuke was dropped on us. The HSE hasn’t had children sleeping on floors yet thankfully.


  • Options
    #75
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    .


  • Options
    #76
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,457 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Cordell wrote: »
    No, I was quite serious. While not a big supporter of strict lockdown myself, I still have the common sense to trust the ones that are more qualified than me, and also in a position of responsibility. This declaration is no more than a political opinion piece, not backed by any study, or any scientifically evidence. Why would you trust them over NPHET? Just because it happens to match your opinion? That's what's called confirmation bias, when you cherry pick only the arguments that confirms your opinion even when they come from less trusted sources.

    Yes I admit it matches my own opinion. An opinion I held long before this came out. But I dont just soak up anything thats anti restriction. And I disagree that it is a political opinion piece.

    And with regards to NPHET, well...
    They do have responsibility but its not necessarily entirely with the common good. Their individual members are personally not materially affected and have plenty of arses to cover. They also have elevated themselves to a political entity - with keen government assistance admittedly - when they really should have been just an advisory body.

    They have also failed to provide scientific evidence with regards to many of their measures.
    They continuously refuse to state what their own red and green lines for given situations are so that nobody can ever question their decisions. Allowing them to make things up as they go along and never to be held to a previous statement.

    And mostly they are looking around what everyone else is doing and aren't keen on adventures. And when everyone is looking around what everyone else is doing with nobody keen on adventures its easy to see how we may all be liable to get caught in a self perpetuating cycle of 'the done thing'. Extremely slow to adjust to better information, no adventures.
    Someone used an IT phrase here the other week which I thought was very fitting. 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM'

    So yes Nphet is closer to home and I will not say they dont take responsibility but they are far beyond scrutiny and far beyond scepticism. Do I trust them to do what they perceive to be the safe thing, yes. Do I trust them to do the right thing if there is a risk with it? Not really, no.


  • Options
    #77
    AUDI20
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭AUDI20


    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.

    Plus at present there is no guarantee of Herd immunity and is yet unknown if its even possible, think the UK had that idea at the start and look where they are now.


  • Options
    #78
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    The starvation will be WORSE if we allow this virus free reign and collapse our health systems and economies.

    This is an unknown. But im not sure how that would manifest in reality. The working middle i.e. the 18 - 65 year olds are a relatively low risk category. Im not sure how starvation would be worse if the economies which are primarily driven by adult employment could be worse than what we have already?


  • Options
    #79
    xhomelezz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    AUDI20 wrote: »
    Plus at present there is no guarantee of Herd immunity and is yet unknown if its even possible, think the UK had that idea at the start and look where they are now.

    Well as you can see, some still want to follow these ideas. I would like to see some real back up to what they say and for sure I would like to see instructions how to do it, practical ones. Give us step by step tutorial, that's the start to get some credibility and something to discuss. So far it's just another thick as brick petition. Anyone can sign for their piece of mind, but won't change a shīt. And just to say I'm not here to back up government, so far they keep making mess with pointless restrictions instead of aiming restrictions right direction. So much to learn from other european countries to do.


  • Options
    #80
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Cordell


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    And I disagree that it is a political opinion piece.
    We should do this and that, with no evidence, guidelines and fallback options - that's clearly an opinion. It's for the public, and it's intended to pressure the decision makers, so it's political.
    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    So yes Nphet is closer to home and I will not say they dont take responsibility but they are far beyond scrutiny and far beyond scepticism. Do I trust them to do what they perceive to be the safe thing, yes. Do I trust them to do the right thing if there is a risk with it? Not really, no.

    Surely you trust those behind the declaration even less?


  • Options
    #81
    yawhat?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭yawhat?


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    Yes I admit it matches my own opinion. An opinion I held long before this came out. But I dont just soak up anything thats anti restriction. And I disagree that it is a political opinion piece.

    And with regards to NPHET, well...
    They do have responsibility but its not necessarily entirely with the common good. Their individual members are personally not materially affected and have plenty of arses to cover. They also have elevated themselves to a political entity - with keen government assistance admittedly - when they really should have been just an advisory body.

    They have also failed to provide scientific evidence with regards to many of their measures.
    They continuously refuse to state what their own red and green lines for given situations are so that nobody can ever question their decisions. Allowing them to make things up as they go along and never to be held to a previous statement.

    And mostly they are looking around what everyone else is doing and aren't keen on adventures. And when everyone is looking around what everyone else is doing with nobody keen on adventures its easy to see how we may all be liable to get caught in a self perpetuating cycle of 'the done thing'. Extremely slow to adjust to better information, no adventures.
    Someone used an IT phrase here the other week which I thought was very fitting. 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM'

    So yes Nphet is closer to home and I will not say they dont take responsibility but they are far beyond scrutiny and far beyond scepticism. Do I trust them to do what they perceive to be the safe thing, yes. Do I trust them to do the right thing if there is a risk with it? Not really, no.

    What do you about the three authors?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,457 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Cordell wrote: »
    We should do this and that, with no evidence, guidelines and fallback options - that's clearly an opinion. It's for the public, and it's intended to pressure the decision makers, so it's political.

    Surely you trust those behind the declaration even less?

    a) fair enough

    b) I wouldn't say I trust them, I dont know them. But I believe what they say is true. I know they are more qualified than I am and it kind of validates my opinion.

    I believe we will arrive at that sooner or later anyway. These people are fundamentally right in what they are saying. We need immunity one way or the other. Vaccine impact is far from certain and will take a long time to arrive in numbers. We gonna run out of money and will long before. Too much collateral damage. Wont take all that long. The longer we drag it out the more damage we do.


  • Options
    #83
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Inquitus wrote: »
    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.

    Those suffering long covid appear to represent a small minority. I'm open to large studies that show otherwise. Of the large number of athletes who were infected most if not all appear to have returned to where they were before with little lasting effects. You cannot compete at the latter stages of grand slam tennis, champions league football or NBA basketball with serious side effects or heart or lung difficulties.

    In summary most people have no lasting side effects.


  • Options
    #84
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    An interview with the three doctors behind the Great Barrington Declaration for anyone who's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4GnCLDbra4

    I hope people won't dismiss it because it's Fox News.

    Dr Bhattacharya hits the nail on the head at around 12:30.


  • Options
    #85
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Rather misleading headline for a journal.ie fact-check, to a full-page advert with a similar message.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-times-covid-19-ad-5234373-Oct2020/

    The headline reads "Claim made in full-page Irish Times ad about Covid-19 deaths is false".

    Actually, the text they are fact checking contains eight statements, and journal.ie admits "most of the claims within the ad are true" (they merely complain "they are presented in a way that is misleading or which lack context about the ongoing situation in Ireland" - where it might equally be said they are presented in challenging, rather than misleading, way.)

    So a headline could be "claims made in full-page Irish Times ad about Covid-19 deaths are mostly true", which is actually a more news-worthy headline.

    The one that isn't strictly true, it's just because the sentence has the rhetorical flourish that if you've tested positive with Covid and get killed by being hit by a bus, you will be counted in the statistics. HSE confirm that those extreme cases - when the cause of death was obviously not the fact that covid was present - won't be included. But they also confirmed that if you'd a more ambiguous cause of death (they give the example of heart attack), this will be included if Covid was present, with the logic being it may have contributed to the death.

    In other words, the substance of that point is also correct - the count includes people who died while testing positive for covid, even if covid wasn't necessarily the primary cause. Because of the rhetorical flourish of "being hit by a bus", journal.ie are pedantically saying this statement is strictly false - which is a Ministry of Truth level of misinformation.

    Stunning what this is doing to our public debate.


  • Options
    #86
    Dunmoreroader
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Dunmoreroader


    VillageIdiot71 wrote: »
    Rather misleading headline for a journal.ie fact-check, to a full-page advert with a similar message.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-times-covid-19-ad-5234373-Oct2020/

    The headline reads "Claim made in full-page Irish Times ad about Covid-19 deaths is false".

    Actually, the text they are fact checking contains eight statements, and journal.ie admits "most of the claims within the ad are true" (they merely complain "they are presented in a way that is misleading or which lack context about the ongoing situation in Ireland" - where it might equally be said they are presented in challenging, rather than misleading, way.)

    So a headline could be "claims made in full-page Irish Times ad about Covid-19 deaths are mostly true", which is actually a more news-worthy headline.

    The one that isn't strictly true, it's just because the sentence has the rhetorical flourish that if you've tested positive with Covid and get killed by being hit by a bus, you will be counted in the statistics. HSE confirm that those extreme cases - when the cause of death was obviously not the fact that covid was present - won't be included. But they also confirmed that if you'd a more ambiguous cause of death (they give the example of heart attack), this will be included if Covid was present, with the logic being it may have contributed to the death.

    In other words, the substance of that point is also correct - the count includes people who died while testing positive for covid, even if covid wasn't necessarily the primary cause. Because of the rhetorical flourish of "being hit by a bus", journal.ie are pedantically saying this statement is strictly false - which is a Ministry of Truth level of misinformation.

    Stunning what this is doing to our public debate.

    Also, rather odd, to say the least, that this Journal.ie article has over 200,000 views and no comments. Are The Journal.ie censoring debate on this?


  • Options
    #87
    Liberalbrehon
    Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭Liberalbrehon


    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?

    This group is sponsored by a libertarian thinktank, also they don't believe in climate change etc. Also some of the doctors on original list were bogus names and since removed.

    Sceptical about their bone fides and motivations. don't know where thinktank funding comes from.

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide

    The media push a scientific divide to sell papers, click-bait, not based on reality.


  • Options
    #88
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Of the 3 main doctors behind this, only Dr. Gupta seems to have raised her head above the parapet before this declaration. The other two just got on with their work.

    Her bloopers include a statistical model that estimated in March that 68% of the UK population had already been infected; since completely disproven by empiricial data.

    And in May a declaration that the virus was on its way out in the UK, never to be seen again.

    A very Trumpesque individual by the sounds of it, which casts a shadow over the cop on of the other two for agreeing to get involved in this.


  • Options
    #89
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭political analyst


    seamus wrote: »
    Of the 3 main doctors behind this, only Dr. Gupta seems to have raised her head above the parapet before this declaration. The other two just got on with their work.

    Her bloopers include a statistical model that estimated in March that 68% of the UK population had already been infected; since completely disproven by empiricial data.

    And in May a declaration that the virus was on its way out in the UK, never to be seen again.

    A very Trumpesque individual by the sounds of it, which casts a shadow over the cop on of the other two for agreeing to get involved in this.

    She told ITV News (2hrs and 15 mins into Emily Morgan's report) that the absence of antibodies ('footsoldiers' as she referred to them) in the blood doesn't actually imply that one doesn't have - in 'central command - the ability to produce antibodies.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-26/covid-19-antibody-levels-reduce-over-time-study-finds


  • Options
    #90
    Dunmoreroader
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Dunmoreroader


    Just listened back to Tuesdays RTE Prime Time discussion of Covid relating to the Great Barrington Declaration and our Poet Laureate of Covid Dr. Luke O'Neill dismissed the Barrington 3 and their arguments re herd immunity as discredited on the basis they are mere Epidemiologists and not Immunologists. He might as well have called them quacks.
    The level of national discourse on this debate is outrageous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    seamus wrote: »
    A very Trumpesque individual by the sounds of it, which casts a shadow over the cop on of the other two for agreeing to get involved in this.


    Nothing like a good old ad hominem to strengthen you argument


Advertisement