Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The thread has abundant evidence of the protection provided by vaccines against severe covid, some of it from articles posted by you, and which you did not dispute. Are you disputing it now?

No. I have never disputed that the vaccines provide protection against severe Covid and death.

What I am disputing is the notion you keep repeating that HK is evidence of the fact vaccines saved us from a horrific Omicron impact. It's nonsense.

I would agree with that.

But it also demonstrates Kulldorff's point on covid vaccine fanatics:

Leaving aside the opinions of those who you view as controversial, common sense explains why anti-vaxx arguments along the lines of it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent transmission, it only prevents severe disease and death so why mandate vaccines for people who are at very low risk of severe disease or death have drowned out the more fringe stuff pre covid vaccines.

Or equally when vaccine fanatics are arguing you need to be vaccinated because there is no such thing as natural immunity, common sense explains why that has become more of an anti-vaxx talking point than pre covid.

Is there a particular part of the Great Barrington thing you personally think is dodgy?

i.e did you think it was madness when you first read it, or had you already dismissed it before you read it because "the scientific community views that guy as controversial"?

"Let the virus ravage the population" is putting it strongly.

The whole point of it was that Covid would not "ravage" those at least risk, quite the opposite - they would be minimally affected and could acquire immunity, thus it made sense not to apply lockdown rules for them, and instead divert resources to ensuring much better protection and support for sheltering those at highest risk.

The fact that the majority of people who had covid suffered few, if any, ill effects more than a severe cold has borne this view out.

To dismiss this view as the idiotic mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists is ridiculous.

I've no idea who Nick Riveria is, but Kermit the Frog could have signed it for all I care.

Sure the credibility and expertise of who authored it is relevant, but who signed it makes no difference at all.

Fine you didn't dismiss it as "mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists". You dismissed it as up there with some most idiotic stuff you'd come across from scientists.

And you're trying to equate it with the fact that "Some doctor stood up in an Ohio statehouse and claimed there were magnets in the vaccines".

But what you're not doing is offering any actual argument as to why the substance of the opinions is idiotic. But no worries, I am used to that.

Have we reached herd immunity?

We certainly have a high enough level of immunity that covid is being viewed as endemic rather than pandemic.

When does the expert think it likely to occur?

He could not say, nor did he claim to know this. The point was that we would risk/reward balance until we reached herd immunity favoured allowing those least at risk from the virus, young healthy adults for example, to go about their business and divert resources to a more focussed protection of the most vulnerable.

Could the expert be wrong about a central point of his declaration?

Which central point are you referring to? If it is that eventually natural immunity would build up to levels we could function properly again, no he was not wrong.

You keep running away from the question, how were hospitals meant to continue as normal in a society where covid was allowed to run rampant? How were vulnerable people to be protected if they went in for scans, in a world where the staff working there were interacting in such a world? How were hospital services to carry on as normal, dealing with the extra volumes of hospitalisations in such a world???

Did our hospital services continue as normal in lockdowns? No. Were vulnerable people protected when they went in for scans? No.

The whole point of the idea was that was potentially a better way of operating, you would try to get as much done as possible in the hospitals without dealing with massive extra volumes of hospitalisations because those most at risk of hospitalisation are precisely the ones you are protecting better.

Another thing the Barrington Declaration is silent on. How many people need to shield. How are multi-generational households supposed to function. How long would they have to shield for.

Again have you actually read it? They are not silent on multi-generational households:

Yes, they don't specify an exact suite of measures, they simply say this is a possible approach and the implementation is "well within the scope and capability of public health professionals". Seems like a perfectly reasonable comment.

I didn't address the rest of your points here, not because I am trying to dodge them, but because getting involved in what would have happened r not if a different approach had be taken is totally pointless. Neither us know the answer to that.

My issue with this whole subject is not so much whether or not it is/was the correct strategy, but I cannot see what it is about the text of this declaration that is deemed to be so anti-science and required "a quick and devastating published takedown."

For example:

"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."

For example what makes "Focused Protection" anti-science yet our own policy of the elderly and vulnerable "cocooning" was sound public health advice?

It also advocates reopening schools for in person teaching. Why is this anti-science yet when we were told it was safe for our kids to go school because the risks to their education were greater than the risks of covid because they didn't get severely ill or transmit the disease, this was sound public health advice?

What's the difference?