3 ms·

It's worth noting that Bhattacharya was one of the originators of the "Great Barrington Declaration," which advocated dropping almost all measures to limit the

It's worth noting that Bhattacharya was one of the originators of the "Great Barrington Declaration," which advocated dropping almost all measures to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, with the aim of quickly achieving herd immunity through widespread infection. This was in mid-2020, before any vaccine was available. This strategy would likely have doubled the death rate in the United States, had it been implemented. That is to say, this study goes strongly against Bhattacharya's oft-expressed views on how the pandemic should have been handled, and one should approach Bhattacharya's criticisms with a good dose of skepticism.

flybrand 3y ago
This is a misrepresentation of ‘focused protection’ and Bhattacharya supported - and still supports - a vaccine strategy, which you insinuate he did not.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  The comment you're replying to clearly specified this was a strategy that was advocated before vaccines were available. If you believe, as the signatories of the declaration did, that natural immunity to the virus is possible, then it's not a vaccine focused strategy, it's a strategy that's independent to any vaccine. It's not as if anyone thought that such a strategy wouldn't lead to the infection of essentially all of humanity, and it doesn't say anywhere in it that they expect there not to be durable natural immunity (in which case the policy is self-defeating and absurd), so while it's not an antivax proposal, it's clearly not vaccine focused. It's plainly true that "focused protection" is a euphemism for letting the virus tear through the vast, the vast majority of the population.
  - orblivion 3y ago
    > the vast, the vast majority of the population The plan specifically is to (somehow) isolate vulnerable people and only "let er rip" for the rest of us. I'm skeptical on how this could have actually worked (or how well it actually did work in Florida), but that's the actual proposal.
    - DocSavage 3y ago
      There's the GBD proposal, and then there's the actual media tours by the GBD proponents, particularly on Fox, where COVID-19 was downplayed. Some of them famously wrote columns how there'd be maybe 10,000 fatalities and it was like the flu. Is it surprising that downplaying the virus also worked against spending huge amounts of money to protect the elderly? Like govt renting hotels to isolate elderly living with families? Or providing deliveries so they could stay at home?
      - orblivion 3y ago
        I think Dr. Jay B seemed reasonable and honest enough. For instance you can find him saying that he's not comfortable comparing it to the flu, since he suspects flu deaths may be greatly overcounted. He talks now (not sure about before) about deliveries and hotels as you say. Etc. But yes, the loudest dissenters seemed to be contrarians, rather than people with a specific plan. They take a big mash of GBD, "lol it's not that bad, not everybody's going to get it", "lol everybody's going to get it so there's nothing we can do anyway", "we're not obligated to look out for other people anyway", etc etc with all the inherent contradictions. Any signal that went against "THE COVID NARRATIVE" they signal boosted. Something like insecurity must have been driving this stuff. I think some of the counter-maintstream points were right, particularly about being sober about tradeoffs, but overall it was a total embarrassment. Granted the other side wasn't much better.
        DocSavage 3y ago
        I think Jay B was better than most of the GBD supporters because he seemed to focus more on the targeted prevention. The problem was he didn't counter the downplaying of SARS-CoV-2 by people using his own seroprevalence paper (which had problems), or at least I never saw him push back on Atlas and others. So his criticism about public health issues is completely devoid of his own part in the story. They went heavy with part 1 (COVID isn't that bad for non-elderly) and were surprised that downplaying the impact didn't shift resources to the elderly. If people using his data were saying the overall IFR was like the flu, why should the govt go way into debt protecting the elderly?
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    Indeed, the idea that "focused protection" could keep the elderly (and all the other at-risk people, who are nearly half of the US population) safe while the virus ripped through the rest of the population was absurd. Of course, we now know that herd immunity would never have been achieved, so the entire premise of the "focused protection" strategy was incorrect. Allowing virtually the entire population to become infected before the advent of vaccines would have been devastating. Things were bad enough as it was, with 1 million deaths in the US alone. At least most people in the US were vaccinated before their first infection - things would have been that much worse if the US had fully followed Bhattacharya's advice and actively sought herd immunity in mid-2020.

flybrand 3y ago

This is a misrepresentation of ‘focused protection’ and Bhattacharya supported - and still supports - a vaccine strategy, which you insinuate he did not.

sudosysgen 3y ago
The comment you're replying to clearly specified this was a strategy that was advocated before vaccines were available. If you believe, as the signatories of the declaration did, that natural immunity to the virus is possible, then it's not a vaccine focused strategy, it's a strategy that's independent to any vaccine. It's not as if anyone thought that such a strategy wouldn't lead to the infection of essentially all of humanity, and it doesn't say anywhere in it that they expect there not to be durable natural immunity (in which case the policy is self-defeating and absurd), so while it's not an antivax proposal, it's clearly not vaccine focused. It's plainly true that "focused protection" is a euphemism for letting the virus tear through the vast, the vast majority of the population.
- orblivion 3y ago
  > the vast, the vast majority of the population The plan specifically is to (somehow) isolate vulnerable people and only "let er rip" for the rest of us. I'm skeptical on how this could have actually worked (or how well it actually did work in Florida), but that's the actual proposal.
  - DocSavage 3y ago
    There's the GBD proposal, and then there's the actual media tours by the GBD proponents, particularly on Fox, where COVID-19 was downplayed. Some of them famously wrote columns how there'd be maybe 10,000 fatalities and it was like the flu. Is it surprising that downplaying the virus also worked against spending huge amounts of money to protect the elderly? Like govt renting hotels to isolate elderly living with families? Or providing deliveries so they could stay at home?
    - orblivion 3y ago
      I think Dr. Jay B seemed reasonable and honest enough. For instance you can find him saying that he's not comfortable comparing it to the flu, since he suspects flu deaths may be greatly overcounted. He talks now (not sure about before) about deliveries and hotels as you say. Etc. But yes, the loudest dissenters seemed to be contrarians, rather than people with a specific plan. They take a big mash of GBD, "lol it's not that bad, not everybody's going to get it", "lol everybody's going to get it so there's nothing we can do anyway", "we're not obligated to look out for other people anyway", etc etc with all the inherent contradictions. Any signal that went against "THE COVID NARRATIVE" they signal boosted. Something like insecurity must have been driving this stuff. I think some of the counter-maintstream points were right, particularly about being sober about tradeoffs, but overall it was a total embarrassment. Granted the other side wasn't much better.
      - DocSavage 3y ago
        I think Jay B was better than most of the GBD supporters because he seemed to focus more on the targeted prevention. The problem was he didn't counter the downplaying of SARS-CoV-2 by people using his own seroprevalence paper (which had problems), or at least I never saw him push back on Atlas and others. So his criticism about public health issues is completely devoid of his own part in the story. They went heavy with part 1 (COVID isn't that bad for non-elderly) and were surprised that downplaying the impact didn't shift resources to the elderly. If people using his data were saying the overall IFR was like the flu, why should the govt go way into debt protecting the elderly?
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  Indeed, the idea that "focused protection" could keep the elderly (and all the other at-risk people, who are nearly half of the US population) safe while the virus ripped through the rest of the population was absurd. Of course, we now know that herd immunity would never have been achieved, so the entire premise of the "focused protection" strategy was incorrect. Allowing virtually the entire population to become infected before the advent of vaccines would have been devastating. Things were bad enough as it was, with 1 million deaths in the US alone. At least most people in the US were vaccinated before their first infection - things would have been that much worse if the US had fully followed Bhattacharya's advice and actively sought herd immunity in mid-2020.