https://gbdeclaration.org/ 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. The Great Barrington Declaration 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. On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. SIGN THE DECLARATION Co-signers Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA. Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
In the thread about masking children, several posters cited "experts" at Houston hospitals as being in favour of masking children. Since we are quoting experts - worth pointing out that there are brave scientists who, at great risk to their personal careers, had the courage to speak up against lockdowns, vaccination mandates and passports, and forced masking of children. History will show that these scientists were right.
If we heeded their advice, a million more people would've died LAST YEAR based on infection rates and mortality rates.
The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement advocating an alternative approach to the COVID-19 pandemic which involves "Focused Protection" of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of COVID-19 lockdowns. Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and signed there on 4 October 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is a libertarian[3] think tank[4] located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. It was founded in 1933 by Edward C. Harwood, an economist and investment advisor. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.[5] Policy positions AIER statements and publications portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable,[7] with titles such as "What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change", "The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously" and "Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest".[8][9][10] The institution has also funded research on the comparative benefits that sweatshops supplying multinationals bring to the people working in them.[11][12] COVID-19 AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by many public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert appointed by the White House, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.[13] Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, wrote that while he sympathizes with a libertarian approach to deal with the pandemic, the declaration was dangerous and misguided.[15] The declaration was also criticized by the Niskanen Center,[16] a formerly libertarian think tank[17] that now calls itself moderate.[18] AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.[19] In October 2020, Twitter removed a tweet by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas linking to an AIER article that argued against the effectiveness of masks.[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economic_Research
I do not believe this to be true. Sweden is the control group. They basically were quite close to doing what the Great Barrington Declaration talks about (except they actually did a poor job in the beginning of the pandemic when it came to focused protection). They still had a lower excess mortality than most of Europe. And certainly a lower excess mortality than the USA. If they had done a better job at the beginning of the pandemic to protect the vulnerable, their statistics would look even better. Natural immunity is a thing, you know.
New Zealand (~50 covid death) is still pursuing a Zero Covid strategy. S Korea never did but these folks seem to confuse temporary strong restrictions as "zero covid". S Korea (~7k cumulative covid death) has done extortionary well relative to other countries like the US (approaching 1M covid death) and UK (160k covid death). They are living with the virus and doing great. Under FAQ: "Is it not better to pursue a ZeroCOVID strategy like New Zealand and South Korea? In New Zealand and South Korea, who locked down soon after the virus arrived, a zero-COVID strategy is feasible in the short run through a combination of lockdowns and national quarantine. Since the world is connected, countries that have successfully achieved a zero-COVID goal will need to disconnect themselves from physical exposure – through international travel limitations and required quarantining – for an indefinite period of time. A key decision for them is whether to wait for a vaccine, that will arrive somewhere between 2 months from now and never, or open the country, at which time the infection will return. Since they have few domestic cases, they are dependent on other countries to develop and evaluate the efficacy of the vaccines they need. Most countries never had that option, with the virus already being too widespread to achieve a temporary national eradication. Pursuing a zero-COVID policy through lockdowns is then futile, leading to collateral damage with devastating effects on the health of millions around the world. "
Oxford, Stanford, Harvard professors. Hardly uneducated idiots. See, I don't think it's right that Twitter has been doing that.
New Zealand is awful. My wife's sister had a heart attack at age 36. She had a small baby and was still breast-feeding. While she was recovering in hospital, she was not allowed to see her child or her husband, for weeks. She wasn't even allowed to pump the milk and have it taken out to the parking lot for her baby. All in the interest of "health". The Zero Covid strategy has been a monumental, inhumane failure. Jacinda Ardern is a terrible person, and an awful politician.
I'm sorry about your wife's sister. They have a total of 53 covid death. I don't know how they feel after 2 years but remember that for a period of time while many of us were semi-lock down, they were partying because they have no cases. Their strategy of zero covid was very successful until Delta somewhat and now Omicron. It seems impossible to continue but who knows.
No, it won't. In Oct 2020: 200,000 had already died. We had no vaccines and were still heavily in lock down mode as a society. People were out and about in masks, but it was a different time. By Apr 1 2021, another 300,000 had died and we had just started our massive vaccination efforts (I was fully vaccinated early January 2021) and the world was starting to recover from the winter wave and things were looking good. July even looked beautiful until Delta showed it was not going to spare the unvaccinated. A year later, a little more than half the population have been fully vaccinated and the stance went to let it rip even if unofficially. Omicron tore through the US leaving Delta in the dust. We are now at 915,000 US deaths. And there is no reason to not think this passes 1,000,000 by the end of the month from the lag from omicron wave. Most of us know people who were seriously harmed or died from COVID. Most people I know got COVID from their kids, not work. My kids had COVID and it was not some walk in the park even if it was 'mild'. Remote learning made sense in October 2020. It did not make sense August 2021 when the teachers and adult staff had the chance to be vaccinated. Masks in school made sense in October 2020. They made sense in January 2022 when most kids were still unvaccinated. Will they make sense in March 2022 when most kids will have had it or will be eligible for vaccines (Pfizer just postponed the 0.5-5 yo application)? Let's see.
One other thing that makes this very difficult. In 2020, we had no idea of the long-term impact of contracting covid. We still don't know but we know enough to know it's terrible for many people. Perhaps in the 10 of millions of silent sufferers. That will come to light in the years to come.
We have an unhealthy population at baseline. The mortality rate is between 0.5% and 2% for all age groups for our country. We have 330,000,000 people and a mortality of 0.5% is 1.5 million deaths.
That's why it is important to judge how it works out in the long run. It seems like if you are isolating yourself pretty much on an island (which would never have been an option in the US or Germany), you can do that for some time, but in the long run, you might just be delaying the inevitable. Look at Australia vs. Sweden. Australia pursued a similar strategy to New Zealand, with very grave restrictions on people's freedoms. That way, they managed to keep infections very low for quite a while, but at what cost to society? And let's see how infections developed in the longer run? That's right...just like in Sweden, where they never became a totalitarian police state.
Right, you want to judge both the short and long term. That should include unknown in 2020 such as CFR, long-term impact of contracting covid, when would effective vaccines and therapeutics be available, etcs. Temporary but very strong lockdown (like S. Korea) with on-going sensible restrictions as needed and policy that encourages mass vaccination was the best strategy in hindsight IMO. Now if you look at New Zealand on that chart - it would basically be the horizontal axis line. Can't exactly count them out yet as one of the best strategies.
In South Korea, it's just the Kimchi! More seriously - we have gotten used to just looking at curves of infections, hospital admissions and deaths with Covid. This may sound heartless, but people still die of other things than Covid, and living in a dictatorship like China, where you have no rights and a social credit score system where the government has created a surveillance state, and now they apply all of this "just to keep Covid down" is a dystopian nightmare. At some point, you have to ask whether just letting things run their course and never give up freedom isn't the better path, rather than what Australia and New Zealand did. Yes, fewer Covid deaths in the short run, but at what cost to the fabric of society, people's mental health, the economy.
I think the time has come for a change in the way Covid is tackled. Everything done up until Jan 2022 was correct for the most part. But now, it's a different world for many reasons. It's clear that masks are not nearly as effective in combating Omicron. It's also clear that at least with in the vaccinated, and probably even in those not, Omicron is far less deadly. Yes natural immunity and vaccination rates have done a lot to help protect society, and given that everyone has had time to get vaccinated at least in 1st world countries, and that the mortality rate has dropped significantly, the only risk is to children under 5 who can not get vaccinated still. And that risk is minimal. Is seems that risk can be managed somewhat by diligent testing of children who may get exposed, particularly infants under 6 months where any fever is considered potentially life threatening. So I think it's time to start rolling back mask mandates. But only now.
Certainly, that could be it! For S. Korea, in a relative timeframe to the life expectancy of ~82 years there, 2 years of covid restrictions is ~2.4% of that. Personally, I easily take that trade-off. You shouldn't just look at restriction (that certainly play a part in declining mental health) but the impact of the virus itself. Mental health, I would bet, in S. Korea relative to the west in terms of impact since covid started is much better.
