The Great Barrington Declaration

[oil&gas]

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 PCR 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.

...................................

Great Barrington Declaration and Petition

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

gbdeclaration.org

 

[lenny2]

There are more ways to practice "safe sex" than wearing a condom.

There are more ways to deal with the C-19 pandemic than hard lockdowns.

The question is, which is the most effective way & will it vary depending on the circumstances. Does one size fit all.

 

[lenny2]

" Other experts argue that allowing COVID-19 to spread uncontrollably would lead to unnecessary deaths, illness and hospitalizations, even if the U.S. attempted to isolate vulnerable people from the rest of the population while the virus spreads.

"... William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard who noted that most experts are not pushing for continuous lockdowns everywhere all the time, agreed that a better job needs to be done of handling the unintended economic and social consequences of public health measures but argued that speeding up herd immunity without a vaccine is not the answer and could also overwhelm hospitals.

“It’s quite dangerous, for multiple reasons,” he said.

"If you do this, you’ll get more infections, more hospitalizations and more deaths," he added.


The mainstream view of epidemiologists and public health experts, including the nation’s top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization, is that the best way to get through COVID-19 and protect people who are at risk for serious illness is to not get sick in the first place by wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

While young people are far less likely to become seriously ill or die from COVID-19, they’re still capable of spreading the disease to people who will become very sick or die.

...Hanage questioned the ability to successfully cordon off the most vulnerable and protect them from getting infected, noting that the White House recently became the site of a superspreading event involving the president, despite having regular access to testing that the average American does not.

"The greatest risk of introduction to the most vulnerable communities will be when the rate of infection is really high in younger age groups," Hanage said.

“How would you keep the virus out if 10 percent of the younger population is infected at peak prevalence and with tests that cannot keep the virus out of the White House?” he added.

... Questions also remain about how long immunity from COVID-19 lasts after infection and whether people can become sick more than once. It’s also not known what percentage of the population needs to be infected with COVID-19 before herd immunity is accomplished.

Gregg Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Medicine, tweeted in response to the declaration that a large number of people vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness don’t live in nursing homes, including 50 percent of all Americans who have some sort of underlying health condition. He added that surges in cases among young people have already likely led to deaths of older, more vulnerable people, despite efforts to protect them.

“If you’re going to turbo-charge community spread, as everyone else at ‘low-risk’ goes about their business, I want the plan for my 86-year-old mother to be more than theoretical,” he said.

Trump health official meets with doctors pushing herd immunity

A top Trump health official met Monday with a group of doctors who are proponents of the controversial “herd immunity” approach to COVID-19, even as other experts warn of its deadly and dangerous c…

thehill.com