4 ms·

>> Since the declaration last week, the Great Barrington Declaration has come under attack across the media, online (including Wikipedia and Google) from fellow

>> Since the declaration last week, the Great Barrington Declaration has come under attack across the media, online (including Wikipedia and Google) from fellow academics as being part of a Libertarian conspiracy (my politics are not remotely libertarian) or being based in “pseudoscience”; others attempting to be less defamatory say that our views are “fringe”. The large number of serious scientists from top institutions taking part suggest otherwise. There are genuine good faith disagreements that must be aired and discussed — the impact on the world is too significant for us to fail to have this discussion in a serious way. This has been frustrating this week. I appreciate the author's nuanced approach. It seems that fear has made many too irrational to actually listen to this group of scientists, or to even attempt understanding of the principles on which they base their recommendation.

devwastaken 6y ago
What are the basic principles on which they base their recommendation? A statement by them a few days ago: "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" There's a very obvious problem here. Those at high risk have to intermingle with everyone else, and most at high risk don't know that they are. You don't just 'gain herd immunity'. You get the virus, be contagious, give it to anyone else you come in contact with, and they go out and do the same. People can't afford to quarantine and refuse it. People will not wear a mask, they don't care. Americans whom won't die from the virus will not take it seriously. In reality barrington is advocating that people die. Which if they're doctors they've violated their do no harm promise - not that it ever meant anything. As far as I can tell barrington has no leg to stand on. It doesn't matter if they're supposed 'experts', if they're right then they can prove it.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Isn't it cheaper to guarantee that high riskers can stay at home and self isolate? Far better than money printer go brr and likely economic implosion.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    It's impossible. The vast majority of the most vulnerable need at least some help and interaction from others on a regular basis.
    - throwaways885 6y ago
      But that can be done by pouring resources into the vulnerable. We already have Covid marshals - wouldn't it be great if they could go door-to-door for everyone who needs it, daily? We have the resources to do this.
- vinniejames 6y ago
  > most at high risk don't know that they are This is not factually accurate. The majority of deaths are those 65+, most people in this group are aware of their age
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
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. This is the problem with the declaration. We can see from recent events in the UK that most of the transmission was amongst younger people but a couple of weeks later and it has spread to vulnerable parts of the population and the death rate is increasing.
taxicab 6y ago
You understand what you did here, right? You're complaining about not having your views taken seriously because people consider them ideology driven. Then, you immediate dismiss anyone who disagrees with those views because "fear has made many too irrational to actually listen to this group of scientists." Just like there are good faith arguments for the proposal, there are also good faith arguments against it.

devwastaken 6y ago

What are the basic principles on which they base their recommendation? A statement by them a few days ago: "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" There's a very obvious problem here. Those at high risk have to intermingle with everyone else, and most at high risk don't know that they are. You don't just 'gain herd immunity'. You get the virus, be contagious, give it to anyone else you come in contact with, and they go out and do the same. People can't afford to quarantine and refuse it. People will not wear a mask, they don't care. Americans whom won't die from the virus will not take it seriously. In reality barrington is advocating that people die. Which if they're doctors they've violated their do no harm promise - not that it ever meant anything. As far as I can tell barrington has no leg to stand on. It doesn't matter if they're supposed 'experts', if they're right then they can prove it.

throwaways885 6y ago
Isn't it cheaper to guarantee that high riskers can stay at home and self isolate? Far better than money printer go brr and likely economic implosion.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  It's impossible. The vast majority of the most vulnerable need at least some help and interaction from others on a regular basis.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    But that can be done by pouring resources into the vulnerable. We already have Covid marshals - wouldn't it be great if they could go door-to-door for everyone who needs it, daily? We have the resources to do this.
vinniejames 6y ago
> most at high risk don't know that they are This is not factually accurate. The majority of deaths are those 65+, most people in this group are aware of their age

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

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. This is the problem with the declaration. We can see from recent events in the UK that most of the transmission was amongst younger people but a couple of weeks later and it has spread to vulnerable parts of the population and the death rate is increasing.

taxicab 6y ago

You understand what you did here, right? You're complaining about not having your views taken seriously because people consider them ideology driven. Then, you immediate dismiss anyone who disagrees with those views because "fear has made many too irrational to actually listen to this group of scientists." Just like there are good faith arguments for the proposal, there are also good faith arguments against it.