# The Great Barrington Declaration



## Purple

*The Great Barrington Declaration *has been signed by over 5000 scientists and 10,000 doctors and argues for the lifting of general lockdowns on the grounds that they have a greater negative impact on public health than Covid19. It also points out that the lockdown impacts most on the poor and the young while Covid19 impacts the old and the rich. It points out that children are more likely to die from influenza than Covid19. It is worth a read and is food for thought.


----------



## mtk

v interesting reading . I saw *Dr. Sunetra Gupta* one of the 3 main proponents on prime time i think a week or 2 ago saying same thing.


----------



## Purple

I've long been of the opinion that the people with the power and the money, and so the loudest voice, are the people most as risk of dying from this and so have led the reaction to this disease. Those with the least power and the least money are disproportionately impacted by the lockdown; one in four under 25's have lost their job as a result of the lockdown. If the impacts were reversed we would be having a totally different conversation.


----------



## odyssey06

I read it. It's fantasy \ aspirational stuff to be honest.
No attempt made to really explain how we handle multi-generational households, or households say with a vulnerable parent and school aged child.

This is one of their actual proposals: _"nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity" _
How do they acquire this immunity?
What if you don't have enough staff with immunity?
What about nursing home staff who are themselves vulnerable, or have vulnerable family members?
Fantasy stuff.
And thousands of scientists signed this statement?

4% of covid deaths in the US were under 65s with no co-morbidities such as heart disease etc.
This is not a risk free disease to working age people.

I read a criticism elsewhere which said you can tell it is written by epidemologists - Immunologists are thrashing it as it assumes people once infected are immune for years afterwards as as given, when we have no firm idea on this.

They should have just outlined the public health impacts of the restrictions, lockdown etc  and stuck to that.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> It points out that children are more likely to die from influenza than Covid19.



Should we lift all restrictions on smoking in public because children are too young to develop lung cancer???
I don't know why that 'fact' is in any way relevant.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I read it. It's fantasy \ aspirational stuff to be honest.
> No attempt made to really explain how we handle multi-generational households, or households say with a vulnerable parent and school aged child.
> 
> This is one of their actual proposals: _"nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity" _
> How do they acquire this immunity?
> What if you don't have enough staff with immunity?
> What about nursing home staff who are themselves vulnerable, or have vulnerable family members?
> Fantasy stuff.
> And thousands of scientists signed this statement?
> 
> I read a criticism elsewhere which said you can tell it is written by epidemologists - Immunologists are thrashing it as it assumes people once infected are immune for years afterwards as as given, when we have no firm idea on this.
> 
> They should have just outlined the public health impacts of the restrictions, lockdown etc  and stuck to that.


The problem is that there's no attempt by immunologists and others to explain how the current policies will be paid for, are sustainable or are and will impact on public health in the short to medium term. If 25% of the highly paid people on NEPHT, who have 100% job security, were going to lose their job and possibly their homes and were going to see a escalation of mental health issues, addiction issues, domestic abuse etc within their own families then I suspect they would hold different views on how to treat this. 
Public Health is about more than Covid19. It is about the health and wellness of the population at large. The current policies we have in place are economically and socially unsustainable and are based on a false certainty that we will have billions of doses of a 80% plus effective vaccine in the short term. If that isn't fantasy/aspirational stuff I don't know what is.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Should we lift all restrictions on smoking in public because children are too young to develop lung cancer???


I presume you know that smoking isn't a virus so I don't know how that is relevant.



odyssey06 said:


> I don't know why that 'fact' is in any way relevant.


 We don't close schools when there's a flu outbreak.

Edit; In the context of the impact of Lockdowns on children this is worth a read


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I presume you know that smoking isn't a virus so I don't know how that is relevant.
> We don't close schools when there's a flu outbreak.



It seems relevant, if you are comparing public health measures and assessing the impact of a disease on different demographics.
My point was, you cannot just look at the impact of a disease on one demographic in assessing what public health measures it warrants.

If you just looked at the impact on children, you might conclude coronavirus should be less of a public health concern than flu - and that would be assuming there are no long term effects to coronavirus infection we haven't yet discovered.
If you look at the impact on all demographics, it is clear that coronavirus is a higher order of threat - as we have no vaccine at all, nor prior immunity to strains and quite possibly it is just a more severe disease.

We haven't closed schools in this phase, but we closed them in earlier phases - as much as the risk to children, as for the risk that they would spread it to more vulnerable demographics. They are open in this phase because of their essential purpose.
Any non-essential collection of people with the same risk would not be permitted.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> The problem is that there's no attempt by immunologists and others to explain how the current policies will be paid for, are sustainable or are and will impact on public health in the short to medium term. If 25% of the highly paid people on NEPHT, who have 100% job security, were going to lose their job and possibly their homes and were going to see a escalation of mental health issues, addiction issues, domestic abuse etc within their own families then I suspect they would hold different views on how to treat this.
> Public Health is about more than Covid19. It is about the health and sickness of the population at large. The current policies we have in place are economically and socially unsustainable and are based on a false certainty that we will have billions of doses of a 80% plus effective vaccine in the short term. If that isn't fantasy/aspirational stuff I don't know what is.



Immunologists don't have to explain how it will be paid for. 
That is up to governments to balance - and to judge what the immunologists & epidemologists are telling them and to balance that against what is economically feasible. 
Epidemologists stressing to governments that the restrictions have public health costs which need to be factored into those decisions - that's what they should be doing.

But...
Epidemologists assuming that infected people retain protection long term and that we should base public health policy on this assumption - fantasy stuff.
Epidemologists assuming that infected people don't have any long term health issues - fantasy stuff.
Epidemologists suggesting as a practical solution that nursing home staff should be hired from the infected - fantasy stuff.

And... if we want to talk about the societal impact of the lockdown, while domestic abuse incidents increased by 25%. 
Residential burglaries were down by almost 60% (59.7%) and burglary elsewhere reduced by half (49.2%).
Crimes against the person were down by over a quarter (27.4%).  









						Drop in most reported crime but rise in domestic abuse
					

Gardaí say Covid-19 has led to significant reductions in most reported crime in March and April of this year.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I've long been of the opinion that the people with the power and the money, and so the loudest voice, are the people most as risk of dying from this and so have led the reaction to this disease. Those with the least power and the least money are disproportionately impacted by the lockdown; one in four under 25's have lost their job as a result of the lockdown. If the impacts were reversed we would be having a totally different conversation.



Let's imagine if coronavirus hit children the way it actually hits over 65s and those with pre-existing conditions.
And let's imagine over 65s were mostly immune to it.

If we had had hundreds of children dying in the spring, we'd have been in lockdown.
So if you're trying to sell the theory we're in lockdown because the old and rich are most vulnerable to this, I think this little thought experiment shows it how false the theory is.


----------



## joe sod

I think that's the biggest problem with nphet they are not affected themselves by the restrictions, it's very easy to recommend heavy restrictions when you and your colleagues will not pay the price, the price will be paid predominantly by small businesses.  Then when the corona infections go down due to those restrictions you get all the kudos, there was a bit of that with Tony holohan. 
Contrast that with the captain of the titanic who when the ship was going down made decisions that saved the most vulnerable ,the women and children, yet he and the top brass went down with the ship.


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> I think that's the biggest problem with nphet they are not affected themselves by the restrictions, it's very easy to recommend heavy restrictions when you and your colleagues will not pay the price, the price will be paid predominantly by small businesses.  Then when the corona infections go down due to those restrictions you get all the kudos, there was a bit of that with Tony holohan.
> Contrast that with the captain of the titanic who when the ship was going down made decisions that saved the most vulnerable ,the women and children, yet he and the top brass went down with the ship.



I'd prefer if the captain of the ship hadn't sunk it to be honest. Maybe a captain who wasn't thinking of losing his job for travelling slower through dangerous waters wouldn't have hit that iceberg. 

It would be wrong of NPHET to consider the economic cost of it, that's not their job and it would contaminate their advice.
It's up to the government to take the advice from NPHET and other experts and balance that in their decisions.
The pilot of a ship guiding a vessel into port shouldn't be thinking about whether the captain will lose his bonus for arriving late.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Immunologists don't have to explain how it will be paid for.


Sure, but I assume they assume that they will continue to be paid.



odyssey06 said:


> That is up to governments to balance - and to judge what the immunologists & epidemologists are telling them and to balance that against what is economically feasible.


 And socially viable. Recessions kill people too. They don't kill well paid and economically billetproof State employees though.



odyssey06 said:


> stressing to governments that the restrictions have public health costs which need to be factored into those decisions - that's what they should be doing.


 I agree, but other than vague lip service I see no evidence of them doing so. 




odyssey06 said:


> assuming that infected people retain protection long term and that we should base public health policy on this assumption - fantasy stuff.


 Really? Assuming that it is likely that people will have a resistance to a disease they have already contracted and recovered from is fantasy stuff? I don't hear anyone of note suggesting that everyone who gets it will be immune but it would be bizarre to think that some form of immunity is likely.  



odyssey06 said:


> assuming that infected people don't have any long term health issues - fantasy stuff.


 Really? A small minority of people will have long term health issues, just as an even smaller minority of people will die from it, but give the vast weight of evidence that to date the vast majority of people make a full and complete recovery within a few weeks why do you think it is fantasy stuff to think that the vast majority of people make a full and complete recovery within a few weeks?



odyssey06 said:


> suggesting as a practical solution that nursing home staff should be hired from the infected - fantasy stuff.


 Yep, that does sound strange. 



odyssey06 said:


> And... if we want to talk about the societal impact of the lockdown, while domestic abuse incidents increased by 25%.
> Residential burglaries were down by almost 60% (59.7%) and burglary elsewhere reduced by half (49.2%).
> Crimes against the person were down by over a quarter (27.4%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop in most reported crime but rise in domestic abuse
> 
> 
> Gardaí say Covid-19 has led to significant reductions in most reported crime in March and April of this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rte.ie


 Addiction, mental health issues, suicides etc all increase during a recession. This will be no different.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Let's imagine if coronavirus hit children the way it actually hits over 65s and those with pre-existing conditions.
> And let's imagine over 65s were mostly immune to it.
> 
> If we had had hundreds of children dying in the spring, we'd have been in lockdown.
> So if you're trying to sell the theory we're in lockdown because the old and rich are most vulnerable to this, I think this little thought experiment shows it how false the theory is.


Good example. We would have closed schools and made children stay at home. The rest of the country would have continued as it. 
The old are the rich.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I'd prefer if the captain of the ship hadn't sunk it to be honest. Maybe a captain who wasn't thinking of losing his job for travelling slower through dangerous waters wouldn't have hit that iceberg.
> 
> It would be wrong of NPHET to consider the economic cost of it, that's not their job and it would contaminate their advice.
> It's up to the government to take the advice from NPHET and other experts and balance that in their decisions.
> The pilot of a ship guiding a vessel into port shouldn't be thinking about whether the captain will lose his bonus for arriving late.


Maybe a captain who wasn't in danger of drowning would be less concerned about the ship sinking.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Sure, but I assume they assume that they will continue to be paid.



So will the epidemologists? So what?
Either their advice is sound on medical grounds or it is not.
So this angle of attack is just scurrilous nonsense with no merit or logic.



> Really? Assuming that it is likely that people will have a resistance to a disease they have already contracted and recovered from is fantasy stuff? I don't hear anyone of note suggesting that everyone who gets it will be immune but it would be bizarre to think that some form of immunity is likely.



Yes it's fantasy stuff, this is a new disease, we just don't know how the cycles of infection, strains, mutations, antibody resistance will play out.
"Some form of immunity" is not the basis for a practical policy.
How many times have you had colds and flus and adenoviruses and rhinoviruses?
How many cycles of infection would we have to go through?
How many people do the epidemologists think it's acceptable to die during these cycles while her immunity is gained "for some time"?



> Really? A small minority of people will have long term health issues, just as an even smaller minority of people will die from it, but give the vast weight of evidence that to date the vast majority of people make a full and complete recovery within a few weeks why do you think it is fantasy stuff to think that the vast majority of people make a full and complete recovery within a few weeks?



It's fantasy stuff to think we have any real conception of the long terms effects of this disease.


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> *The Great Barrington Declaration *has been signed by over 5000 scientists and 10,000 doctors and argues for the lifting of general lockdowns on the grounds that they have a greater negative impact on public health than Covid19. It also points out that the lockdown impacts most on the poor and the young while Covid19 impacts the old and the rich. It points out that children are more likely to die from influenza than Covid19. It is worth a read and is food for thought.



I just signed it as a PHD in Nowhere University with a made up name - well I would have if I confirmed the email. That tells you everything you need to know about the "5000 Scientists and 10,000 doctors".

But the broader question about this fringe outfit is that they make the assumption that there are little to no long term impact of Covid for people who recover


----------



## Ceist Beag

joe sod said:


> Contrast that with the captain of the titanic who when the ship was going down made decisions *that saved the most vulnerable ,the women and children*, yet he and the top brass went down with the ship.


Well not sure about that Joe, the first class women and children maybe but certainly not the most vulnerable third class passengers, so not sure I would be quoting the titanic as an example of the most vulnerable being the ones prioritised!


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> So will the epidemologists? So what?
> Either their advice is sound on medical grounds or it is not.
> So this angle of attack is just scurrilous nonsense with no merit or logic.


They are giving advice which has no negative impact on themselves. Public Health is about more than viral infections. 





odyssey06 said:


> Yes it's fantasy stuff, this is a new disease, we just don't know how the cycles of infection, strains, mutations, antibody resistance will play out.
> "Some form of immunity" is not the basis for a practical policy.


 Assuming that we'll have an effective vaccine "soon" isn't either. 



odyssey06 said:


> How many times have you had colds and flus and adenoviruses and rhinoviruses?
> How many cycles of infection would we have to go through?


 You are comparing over 200 different DNA and RNA viruses to a single RNA virus. How is that relevant? 



odyssey06 said:


> How many people do the epidemologists think it's acceptable to die during these cycles while her immunity is gained "for some time"?


 Okay, so now we are at the crux of it. The answer is to balance the number of people who will die as a result of no lockdown against the numbers who will die as a result of a lockdown. Do remember that there are now 25,000,000 in Pakistan alone at risk of starvation due to the lockdowns in rich Western countries. There is no scenario in which Covid kills more people than the lockdowns we now have in place and in the longer term the lockdowns may just lengthen the curve but not really reduce the total deaths. 



odyssey06 said:


> It's fantasy stuff to think we have any real conception of the long terms effects of this disease.


 Really? It's a respiratory disease in the Coronavirus family. Millions of people have contracted it and recovered from it. Are you suggesting that it will act vastly differently from other viruses within that family and that the millions of people who have been examined have some disabilities which have all been missed?


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> I just signed it as a PHD in Nowhere University with a made up name - well I would have if I confirmed the email. That tells you everything you need to know about the "5000 Scientists and 10,000 doctors".


 What about the listed signatories, both immunologists and epidemiologists, do you think they are crackpots?



EmmDee said:


> But the broader question about this fringe outfit is that they make the assumption that there are little to no long term impact of Covid for people who recover


 What evidence is there that there will be any significant long term impacts of Covid on the vast majority of people who have recovered? Some people suffer long term effects of Flu and other diseases which the vast majority of people recover fully from.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> They are giving advice which has no negative impact on themselves. Public Health is about more than viral infections.



I repeat this is scurrilous nonsense.
This is not a valid criteria. Either their advice is sound or it it not.



> You are comparing over 200 different DNA and RNA viruses to a single RNA virus. How is that relevant?



How is it not? Viruses develop different strains. You can be re-infected with differenrt strains.



> Okay, so now we are at the crux of it. The answer is to balance the number of people who will die as a result of no lockdown against the numbers who will die as a result of a lockdown. Do remember that there are now 25,000,000 in Pakistan alone at risk of starvation due to the lockdowns in rich Western countries. There is no scenario in which Covid kills more people than the lockdowns we now have in place and in the longer term the lockdowns may just lengthen the curve but not really reduce the total deaths.



And where from the Barrington experts is that range of deaths, per country?
And the evidence for the estimate.
So how can you say, there is no scenario in which Covid kills more people?
And I mean real scenarios, not nonsense about Pakistan. e.g. How many people are at risk of starvation in Pakistan, if we let this virus overwhelm the western world public health system?



> Really? It's a respiratory disease in the Coronavirus family. Millions of people have contracted it and recovered from it. Are you suggesting that it will act vastly differently from other viruses within that family and that the millions of people who have been examined have some disabilities which have all been missed?



It's a new virus, I don't know, and the experts don't proclaim to know for sure how it will act long term.
Millions have been thoroughly examined for long term effects? Where is that study?


----------



## odyssey06

In the interests of balance, I include a link below of expert reactions to the Barrington Declaration from which I will excerpt these pieces.

Those behind the Barrington Declaration are advocates of herd immunity within a population.  They state that “_Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal_”, with the idea being that somehow the vulnerable of society will be protected from ensuing transmission of a dangerous virus.  It is a very bad idea.  We saw that *even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that, and 20-30% of the UK population would be classed as vulnerable to a severe COVID-19 infection*.  Around 8% of the UK population has some level of immunity to this novel coronavirus, and that immunity will likely wane over time and be insufficient to prevent a second infection.  A strategy for herd immunity would also promote further inequalities across society, for example across the Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.  The declaration also ignores the emerging burdens of ‘long COVID’.  We know that many people, even younger populations who suffered from an initially mild illness, are suffering from longer-term consequences of a COVID-19 infection. 

We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple.  We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year.  It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays. “The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus *no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made*.  Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero.  I suspect the public would like to know this... *A working description of vulnerability is not given. *



			expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ | Science Media Centre


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I repeat this is scurrilous nonsense.
> This is not a valid criteria. Either their advice is sound or it it not.


 The advice is sound if the only consideration is Covid19 but public health is more than that. Suggesting that the group giving the advice may lack that broader public health perspective and lack empathy due to the privileged social and economic position they have hend most or all of their adult life is not scurrilous nonsense.





odyssey06 said:


> How is it not? Viruses develop different strains. You can be re-infected with differenrt strains.


 You asked how often I had contracted and recovered from over 200 different viruses, some of which are DNA viruses and so far more likely to mutate, and suggested that I use that as a measure when assessing the likelihood of re-contracting a single RNA virus which, by its nature, is less likely to mutate.





odyssey06 said:


> And where from the Barrington experts is that range of deaths, per country?
> And the evidence for the estimate.
> So how can you say, there is no scenario in which Covid kills more people?


 So far the estimated Infection Fatality Rate (as opposed to the Case Fatality Rate) is between 0.5% and 1%. Given that well over 90% of  fatalities are in the at risk group the IFR for low risk groups is less than 0.06%. If one third of the world's population gets the disease (as is estimated contracted the 1918 flu) then 14 to 23 million people will die globally.



odyssey06 said:


> And I mean real scenarios, not nonsense about Pakistan. e.g. How many people are at risk of starvation in Pakistan, if we let this virus overwhelm the western world public health system?


 I think Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, is more qualified that you or me to put a number of those at risk of starving in his country due to Covid19 and he said it's 25,000,000. I'll go with that until a better source is provided. When you then consider parts of India and much of sub-Saharan Africa is it reasonable to conclude that the number will be a multiple of that. Then there's the economic impact, the political unrest, the displacement, the other diseases, the hospitals that won't be built, the resourced that won't be deployed etc.



odyssey06 said:


> It's a new virus, I don't know, and the experts don't proclaim to know for sure how it will act long term.


 No, it could cause the zombie apocalypse but it is very unlikely. It is extremely probably that it will behave broadly in line with related viruses.


odyssey06 said:


> Millions have been thoroughly examined for long term effects? Where is that study?


 You are asking me to prove a negative. Millions show no effects at all. Why do you think they will start showing long term effects when they are showing no shorter term effects?


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. *We do not have herd immunity to the common cold* despite many of us having one or more each year.


When people make stupid comparisons like that they lose credibility. The Common Cold is a family of over 200 viruses of vastly different types which all infect the respiratory tract. Some mutate and change frequently, unlike Corona Viruses.


----------



## Sophrosyne

So herd immunity is actually the magic bullet. *Fact!*

And there was I thinking the “miracle” cure was Trump’s Regeneron’s cocktail of monoclonal antibodies. *Fact!*


----------



## Prosper

Purple said:


> Some mutate and change frequently, *unlike Corona Viruses*.


You sure about that?


----------



## Purple

Prosper said:


> You sure about that?


RNA viruses will generally mutate quickly but those mutations are more likely to be limited and have no material effect on the behaviour of the virus so when I say they are less likely to mutate I mean less likely to mutate in  a manner which will have a material effect on the infection or severity rate. Covid19 has an enzyme which corrects potentially fatal copying mistakes thus making it far more stable (and less likely to mutate) than other Coronaviruses.


----------



## Prosper

Ok, but your not sure. It could develop into a more dangerous strain.


----------



## Purple

Prosper said:


> Ok, but your not sure. It could develop into a more dangerous strain.


As I said above, it could mutate into the zombie apocalypse or into something that causes our toenails to become sentient and attack us but it is very improbable. The reproductive cycle of a virus is generally between 8 and 72 hours so they are all evolving much faster than us.
It could develop into a more dangerous strain, as could any other virus, but due to its nature that is less likely to happen relative to other viruses.


----------



## Purple

Prosper said:


> Ok, but your not sure. It could develop into a more dangerous strain.


It's also worth noting that a mutation of a significant nature would almost certainly render any vaccine useless. Do we then go into another two years of lockdown in the hope of another vaccine and no further significant mutations?
How many tens of millions more poor people will die as a result of that? How much more political unrest will it cause? How many more wars? As climate change displaces hundreds of millions of people what will the cumulate economic and social cost be? 
We have adopted the King Cnut strategy. Viruses were here before us and they will be here after us. Thinking we can bend nature to our will on this scale is folly.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> So herd immunity is actually the magic bullet. *Fact!*
> 
> And there was I thinking the “miracle” cure was Trump’s Regeneron’s cocktail of monoclonal antibodies. *Fact!*


What?
Where in anything I said or anything I linked to did you read that?
This suggests that the stability of the virus makes immunity post infection more likely and a single vaccine being effective in the longer term more likely. Measles is a stable RNA virus. There has only ever been a single vaccine and re-infection is very rare (though I got it twice as a kid).


----------



## Prosper

Purple said:


> It's also worth noting that a mutation of a significant nature would almost certainly render any vaccine useless.


Good point


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> The advice is sound if the only consideration is Covid19 but public health is more than that. Suggesting that the group giving the advice may lack that broader public health perspective and lack empathy due to the privileged social and economic position they have hend most or all of their adult life is not scurrilous nonsense.



Their advice is sound within their remit. Their remit is set to them by the government.
Absolutely nothing to suggest therefore that them not taking in a broader public health perspective is due with this nonsense - rather than their remit. 
Do you think that the "Director of Public Health Medicine of the HSE" doesn't have a public health perspective???
In the absence of that, yes it is scurrilous nonsense even this vaguer form of it from where you started from earlier in the thread.



> So far the estimated Infection Fatality Rate (as opposed to the Case Fatality Rate) is between 0.5% and 1%. Given that well over 90% of  fatalities are in the at risk group the IFR for low risk groups is less than 0.06%. If one third of the world's population gets the disease (as is estimated contracted the 1918 flu) then 14 to 23 million people will die globally.



Really, you have the figures for the world's global population of at risk and not at risk? 
Where is that breakdown and if it was so easy to come by why isn't it in the Barrington declaration?
What's the IFR rate if and when ICU capacity is exceeded in hospitals?

The Barrington Declaration is fantasy stuff.
 - No attempt made to quantify who are the vulnerable in the non-vulnerable
 - No attempt made to quantify the deaths in the vulnerable & non-vulnerable for their suggested course of action
 - No practical suggestions for protecting the vulnerable to mitigate the increased risks to them
 - No attempt made to quantify how long immunity lasts for
 - No attempt made to quantify how far we are from herd immunity
 - No attempt made to quantify long term effects of infection

In the absence that, it is more than fantasy, it is reckless and dangerous.



> I think Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, is more qualified that you or me to put a number of those at risk of starving in his country due to Covid19 and he said it's 25,000,000. I'll go with that until a better source is provided. When you then consider parts of India and much of sub-Saharan Africa is it reasonable to conclude that the number will be a multiple of that. Then there's the economic impact, the political unrest, the displacement, the other diseases, the hospitals that won't be built, the resourced that won't be deployed etc.



We should ask Imran Khan instead of our CMO whether Ireland should go into lockdown?
Did you ask him what happens in Pakistan if western world public health system collapses? Did he care much?



> You are asking me to prove a negative. Millions show no effects at all. Why do you think they will start showing long term effects when they are showing no shorter term effects?



Yes, I am asking you to prove a negative. The question is asked in science all the time - prove that a medicine you are bringing to the market does not have dangerous side effects. 
Where are the real, thorough medical studies on those discharged from ICU, hospital etc or who suffered a debilitating attack of the virus e.g. long term effect on lungs, cells, organs, immune response etc etc


----------



## bradyassoc

odyssey06 said:


> *It seems relevant, if you are comparing public health measures and assessing the impact of a disease on different demographics.
> My point was, you cannot just look at the impact of a disease on one demographic in assessing what public health measures it warrants.*
> 
> If you just looked at the impact on children, you might conclude coronavirus should be less of a public health concern than flu - and that would be assuming there are no long term effects to coronavirus infection we haven't yet discovered.
> If you look at the impact on all demographics, it is clear that coronavirus is a higher order of threat - as we have no vaccine at all, nor prior immunity to strains and quite possibly it is just a more severe disease.
> 
> We haven't closed schools in this phase, but we closed them in earlier phases - as much as the risk to children, as for the risk that they would spread it to more vulnerable demographics. They are open in this phase because of their essential purpose.
> Any non-essential collection of people with the same risk would not be permitted.



But isn't that we are currently doing? COVID overwhelmingly impacts one demographic but we are implementing public health and economic measures that are to the detriment of everyone when the reality is that very few people are dying from COVID.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> What?
> Where in anything I said or anything I linked to did you read that?
> This suggests that the stability of the virus makes immunity post infection more likely and a single vaccine being effective in the longer term more likely. Measles is a stable RNA virus. There has only ever been a single vaccine and re-infection is very rare (though I got it twice as a kid).



The virus can mutate to different strains. The vaccine may still function if it targets a point that does not mutate.
Our antibody response may be fired by the vaccine against all such strains.
But without vaccine, our natural immune system may still have to adjust to different strains.

We simply don't have the certainty re: possible strains, and the length of time immunity lasts for, to know if even one round of herd immunity is sufficient.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> The virus can mutate to different strains. The vaccine may still function if it targets a point that does not mutate.
> Our antibody response may be fired by the vaccine against all such strains.
> But without vaccine, our natural immune system may still have to adjust to different strains.
> 
> We simply don't have the certainty re: possible strains, and the length of time immunity lasts for, to know if even one round of herd immunity is sufficient.


Any mutation that renders an antibody response ineffective has a high likelihood of also rendering a vaccine ineffective response since vaccines create an antibody response in a subject prior to them contracting the infection in question.


----------



## odyssey06

bradyassoc said:


> But isn't that we are currently doing? COVID overwhelmingly impacts one demographic but we are implementing public health and economic measures that are to the detriment of everyone when the reality is that very few people are dying from COVID.



No, not at all, the opposite in fact. If we just looked at its impact on under 18s, we could say, oh it's a mild disease, if you ignore the dead people.

That it overwhelmingly impacts one demographic is really irrelevent or versus whether the same fatalities were spread out evenly.
I don't see what it has to do with assessment of the 'detriment of everyone' of the measures, unless you subscribe to some concept of generational accounting.

Very few people are dying because of the measures and because we have ICU capacity to treat it.
If you look at the age profile of people treated and recovered in ICU, it's clear this is not just a disease which is a threat to over 80s.

The measures are there to protect lives and to protect the public health system's capacity to treat all emergencies.


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> What about the listed signatories, both immunologists and epidemiologists, do you think they are crackpots?



I have great confidence in Dr I.P. Freely and Dr Johnny Bananas (though the latter is a Doctor of Hard Sums rather than Immunology admitedly)

It seems the flaw in this excercise was spotted by others. And it doesn't say a lot about the rigour of thought of the authors.









						Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter
					

Other listed supporters include Dr Harold Shipman and Dominic Cummings of "Durham Univercity".




					news.sky.com


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Their advice is sound within their remit. Their remit is set to them by the government.
> Absolutely nothing to suggest therefore that them not taking in a broader public health perspective is due with this nonsense - rather than their remit.
> Do you think that the "Director of Public Health Medicine of the HSE" doesn't have a public health perspective???
> In the absence of that, yes it is scurrilous nonsense even this vaguer form of it from where you started from earlier in the thread.


I feel there is very little point in discussing this particular point further. You seem to be emotionally invested in my comment. I am suggesting that as a group they are from a particular narrow socioeconomic cohort and so see the world from that perspective. That's all. I don't see how suggesting the possibility of such a bias is scurrilous nonsense.



odyssey06 said:


> Really, you have the figures for the world's global population of at risk and not at risk?
> Where is that breakdown and if it was so easy to come by why isn't it in the Barrington declaration?
> What's the IFR rate if and when ICU capacity is exceeded in hospitals?


 I gave figures based on the forecasted IFR (based on WHO data) and an assumed infection rate similar to the 1918 pandemic. I feel that such an infection rate is unlikely given the improvements in healthcare and the absence of a World War but it was a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point.



odyssey06 said:


> The Barrington Declaration is fantasy stuff.
> - No attempt made to quantify who are the vulnerable in the non-vulnerable
> - No attempt made to quantify the deaths in the vulnerable & non-vulnerable for their suggested course of action
> - No practical suggestions for protecting the vulnerable to mitigate the increased risks to them
> - No attempt made to quantify how long immunity lasts for
> - No attempt made to quantify how far we are from herd immunity
> - No attempt made to quantify long term effects of infection
> 
> In the absence that, it is more than fantasy, it is reckless and dangerous.


 Most of that data is already available. Why would they restate it?




odyssey06 said:


> We should ask Imran Khan instead of our CMO whether Ireland should go into lockdown?


 Really?


odyssey06 said:


> Did you ask him what happens in Pakistan if western world public health system collapses? Did he care much?


 I think you misunderstand; I didn't have a conversation with him. I just read what he'd said.





odyssey06 said:


> Yes, I am asking you to prove a negative. The question is asked in science all the time - prove that a medicine you are bringing to the market does not have dangerous side effects.


 That's a completely different thing and you know it. The course we are currently on is also totally unproven and yet you seem to think it is some ironclad, gold plated, tried and tested response.



odyssey06 said:


> Where are the real, thorough medical studies on those discharged from ICU, hospital etc or who suffered a debilitating attack of the virus e.g. long term effect on lungs, cells, organs, immune response etc etc


 So basically you are saying that patients who had no symptoms or mid symptoms when they were infected and have displayed no symptoms since they recovered may have some undefined long term health issues. That's a really strange position to take but you are right; I can't disprove the possibility that you are correct. I can't point to any studies which show it won't happen. I can just question why you think it will be an issue and why anyone would bother to conduct such a study.


----------



## bradyassoc

odyssey06 said:


> No, not at all, the opposite in fact. If we just looked at its impact on under 18s, we could say, oh it's a mild disease, if you ignore the dead people.
> 
> Very few people are dying because of the measures and because we have ICU capacity to treat it.
> If you look at the age profile of people treated and recovered in ICU, it's clear this is not just a disease which is a threat to over 80s.
> 
> The measures are there to protect lives and to protect the public health system's capacity to treat all emergencies.



I don't quite follow the first analogy.

I haven't seen any congruity between restrictions and the death rate. For example, do we know how many people would have died if we didn't have a lockdown or do we know how many people are still alive because we mandated face masks?


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> I have great confidence in Dr I.P. Freely and Dr Johnny Bananas (though the latter is a Doctor of Hard Sums rather than Immunology admitedly)
> 
> It seems the flaw in this excercise was spotted by others. And it doesn't say a lot about the rigour of thought of the authors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter
> 
> 
> Other listed supporters include Dr Harold Shipman and Dominic Cummings of "Durham Univercity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com


They aren't on the list of signatories on the front page of the website. Do cranks who seek to undermine the proposal invalidate the credentials of those people?


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> They aren't on the list of signatories on the front page of the website. Do cranks who seek to undermine the proposal invalidate the credentials of those people?



If some of the credibility is reliant on the numbers signing - yes

If the authors are claiming rigourous thinking and addressing a complex problem and yet can't forsee a straightforward flaw in their process - yes.

Why didn't they just write a letter signed by the original list and leave it at that? Possibly because they didn't think that would carry enough weight.


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> If some of the credibility is reliant on the numbers signing - yes
> 
> If the authors are claiming rigourous thinking and addressing a complex problem and yet can't forsee a straightforward flaw in their process - yes.
> 
> Why didn't they just write a letter signed by the original list and leave it at that? Possibly because they didn't think that would carry enough weight.


So the opinions of doctors and scientists are of no merit because they don't foresee cranks signing an open letter. Strange.
There is certainly a flaw in their method of generating publicity for their letter but that just means they should have hires a publicist. It doesn't take them bad scientists.


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> So the opinions of doctors and scientists are of no merit because they don't foresee cranks signing an open letter.



Not what I said. They don't hold a mainstream view - their opinion is challanged by the majority of doctors and scientists in their field. They tried to create some momentum behind their approach and are looking to claim wider credibility for their approach through the process. This is their problem.

So - not bad scientists. But just not as widely supported as they claim and not as careful as they should be. And THAT point reflects on them. Are they as careful when thinking through potential outcomes when coming to their conclusions as they demonstrated with this process.

So I'm not saying ignore what they say. I just don't give them as much weight or credibility. They are a fringe at this point


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> They are a fringe at this point


Yes, as are most new positions


----------



## Sophrosyne

The thrust of the Great Barrington Declaration is herd immunity and focused protection.

Let’s say you are 40 years old. You are medically compromised or you live with someone who is.

If everyone follows current heath advice, you can go out - for a walk, to a pub or a restaurant, the supermarket, the recycling centre, the barber/hair salon, retail shops, the hardware store, etc., or even your place of work.

If instead, those not at risk freed from any health restrictions resume pre-covid 19 living, what do you do and for how long?


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> The thrust of the Great Barrington Declaration is herd immunity and focused protection.
> Let’s say you are 40 years old. You are medically compromised or you live with someone who is.
> If everyone follows current heath advice, you can go out - for a walk, to a pub or a restaurant, the supermarket, the recycling centre, the barber/hair salon, retail shops, the hardware store, etc., or even your place of work.
> If instead, those not at risk freed from any health restrictions resume pre-covid 19 living, what do you do and for how long?



That's one of the awkward questions the authors of the Great Barrington declaration don't have a practicable answer for.
When you consider their radical idea to protect nursing home residents is hope enough nursing home staff get infected... I'm genuinely curious as to what radical idea they have in mind for your question.

My own personal radical idea is that we in increments take away all the non-vulnerable on a sort of national service for 1 month where they are brought to a field camp and infected with the virus then released back into society. I'm surprised North Korea hasn't tried this yet.
We could have done it with all the kids when the schools were shut. During World War Two the British evacuated children from London to the countryside so there is precedence.
It's on the same level of practicability as the Great Barrington idea to protect nursing homes.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> If 25% of the highly paid people on NEPHT, who have 100% job security, were going to lose their job and possibly their homes and were going to see a escalation of mental health issues, addiction issues, domestic abuse etc within their own families then I suspect they would hold different views on how to treat this.



It's the job security that enables them to make decisions based on the medical evidence without fear or favour. 
It does not matter who holds these positions, it matters that we have positions for people to provide an expertise without looking over their shoulders influenced by what is in their own best financial interests. 



Purple said:


> The current policies we have in place are economically and socially unsustainable



I agree, and this is where government comes in. They have diverged from the expert medical advice. It will remain to be seen if they are correct. 
Personally, I think they were correct not to go to level 5 (in which case I do think NPHET decision making is now questionable). 

Back in March, I think the government were correct to take the approach they did. We knew little about this virus other than it is highly contagious and can kill. The obvious fear of the health services becoming overwhelmed was justification to implement the lockdown. 
However since then, a lot more is, perceivably at least, known about the virus. For instance, we are told, social distancing, frequent hand sanitising, cough etiquette, working from home where possible, wearing masks, all help to limit the spread of the virus. There was none of this in March, but now all of these measures are extremely prevalent. 
So are these measures taking effect? I would suggest they are. The level of testing was reported this week to be at its highest level (some 10,000 per day) since the initial outbreak yet the numbers of detected cases are in this 2nd wave are yet to hit the peaks of the first wave. 
It is possible that the peak of the 2nd wave is yet to come (this I believe is what NPHET are basing their decision upon) but it was roughly six weeks into 1st wave when the peak hit, whereas we are nearly ten weeks since the cases detected began to noticeably rise last August. Notwithstanding the odd rave in Dolphins Barn, GAA County celebrations, and anti-mask protests, the 2nd wave figures began to noticeably rise at the easing of lockdown measures end of July, start of August and the promotion of 'staycations' and then some more, a couple of weeks later, after re-opening of schools. 
Nevertheless, it appears to me anyway, that social distancing, hand sanitising,  masks, working from home etc, does have an obvious impact on limiting the spread. 

I just think we need to start being a bit smarter. Rather than these arbitrary limits on numbers of people from different households (while simultaneously allowing 30 children from 30 households congregate indoors for half a day, 5 days a week) then more practical, awareness driven measures. 
For instance, if you go on holiday, do not visit your elderly relatives for a period of two weeks upon your return. 
If you have an underlying condition, take the measures that you need to take, with government providing the financial supports for employers and employees. 
Obviously, nursing homes, and other healthcare centres pose other obvious risks but they is where our resources should be geared towards rather than blanket shutdowns of businesses everywhere. 

I could of course, after all that, be entirely off the mark here


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> It's the job security that enables them to make decisions based on the medical evidence without fear or favour.


Well there’s a strong element of “you would say that, wouldn’t you?”. 
empathy is important and it is not a given, not amongst doctors or politicians or judges or any other group, especially those who hold themselves in very high esteem..


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> empathy is important and it is not a given, not amongst doctors or politicians or judges or any other group, especially those who hold themselves in very high esteem..



I would strongly disagree with that. My guess is that governing politicians are acutely aware of the bubbling discontent amongst working people and business communities. It is was this awareness that led to the divergence from NPHET advice. The prospect of mass civil disobedience had level 5 been introduced so suddenly was a real prospect in my opinion. And if they occurs, then government falls - conversely, it is the lack of job security for government ministers that may have influenced the decision to go level 3, and not 4 or 5. 
It remains to be seen if they were right.


----------



## Sophrosyne

odyssey06 said:


> When you consider their radical idea to protect nursing home residents is hope enough nursing home staff get infected... I'm genuinely curious as to what radical idea they have in mind for your question.



Barrington and others of that ilk assume that herd immunity can be achieved in the short-term.

Were that the case, then there might be some merit in what they say.

But although the virus has been circling the globe for more than 10 months, perhaps longer, there is no evidence of long-term immunity anywhere even in areas with few restrictive measures.

WHO say that we are nowhere near herd immunity.

What we are doing works already, but let’s not kid ourselves, the level of restriction depends on public behaviour and not on NPHET.


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> What we are doing works already, but let’s not kid ourselves, the level of restriction depends on public behaviour and not on NPHET.



Ultimately yes, but NPHET has the capacity to 'nudge' that behaviour.


----------



## odyssey06

BBC article on '*Long Covid*'...

Long Covid is not just people taking time to recover from a stay in intensive care. Even *people with relatively mild infections can be left with lasting and severe health problems*.
"We've got no doubt long Covid exists," Prof David Strain, from the University of Exeter, who is already seeing long-Covid patients at his Chronic Fatigue Syndrome clinic, told the BBC.

The coronavirus can directly infect a wide variety of cells in the body and trigger an overactive immune response which also causes damage throughout the body. One thought is *the immune system does not return to normal* after Covid and this causes ill-health.
The infection may also alter how people's organs function. This is most obvious with the lungs if they become scarred - long-term problems have been seen after infection with Sars or Mers, which are both types of coronavirus.
But Covid may also alter people's metabolism. There have been cases of people struggling to control their blood sugar levels after developing diabetes as a result of Covid, and Sars led to changes in the way the body processed fats for at least 12 years.

The number of people with long-Covid appears to be falling with time.
However, the virus emerged only at the end of 2019 before going global earlier this year so there is a lack of long-term data.
"We've asked, deliberately, to follow people for 25 years, I certainly hope only a very small number will have problems going beyond a year, but I could be wrong," said Prof Brightling.
However, there are concerns that even if people appear to recover now, *they could face lifelong risks*.
People who have had chronic fatigue syndrome are more likely to have it again and the concern is that future infections may cause more flare-ups.

The World Health Organization has warned that widespread inflammation caused by coronavirus could lead to people having *heart problems at a much younger age*.









						'Long Covid': Why are some people not recovering?
					

Why is coronavirus leaving some people with long-term health problems including fatigue?



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Sophrosyne

odyssey06 said:


> Ultimately yes, but NPHET has the capacity to 'nudge' that behaviour.



Not really.
The Government through the HSE can promote certain behaviours, but NPHET is reactive.
It can advise of adverse trends and suggest ameliorating action. The Government can take or leave NPHET's advice.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> I would strongly disagree with that. My guess is that governing politicians are acutely aware of the bubbling discontent amongst working people and business communities


Fair enough, politicians come from a very diverse background and are a good cross section of society.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> BBC article on '*Long Covid*'...
> 
> Long Covid is not just people taking time to recover from a stay in intensive care. Even *people with relatively mild infections can be left with lasting and severe health problems*.
> "We've got no doubt long Covid exists," Prof David Strain, from the University of Exeter, who is already seeing long-Covid patients at his Chronic Fatigue Syndrome clinic, told the BBC.
> 
> The coronavirus can directly infect a wide variety of cells in the body and trigger an overactive immune response which also causes damage throughout the body. One thought is *the immune system does not return to normal* after Covid and this causes ill-health.
> The infection may also alter how people's organs function. This is most obvious with the lungs if they become scarred - long-term problems have been seen after infection with Sars or Mers, which are both types of coronavirus.
> But Covid may also alter people's metabolism. There have been cases of people struggling to control their blood sugar levels after developing diabetes as a result of Covid, and Sars led to changes in the way the body processed fats for at least 12 years.
> 
> The number of people with long-Covid appears to be falling with time.
> However, the virus emerged only at the end of 2019 before going global earlier this year so there is a lack of long-term data.
> "We've asked, deliberately, to follow people for 25 years, I certainly hope only a very small number will have problems going beyond a year, but I could be wrong," said Prof Brightling.
> However, there are concerns that even if people appear to recover now, *they could face lifelong risks*.
> People who have had chronic fatigue syndrome are more likely to have it again and the concern is that future infections may cause more flare-ups.
> 
> The World Health Organization has warned that widespread inflammation caused by coronavirus could lead to people having *heart problems at a much younger age*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Long Covid': Why are some people not recovering?
> 
> 
> Why is coronavirus leaving some people with long-term health problems including fatigue?
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


So one in 50 people are tired after 30 days. Lots of minor illnesses result in minor symptoms in a small number of patients weeks and months later. The hysterical nonsense that a large cohort of people have severe symptoms months later is totally bogus.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Barrington and others of that ilk assume that herd immunity can be achieved in the short-term.


Do they? I didn’t read that. That group are in “that ilk”? Are they some sort of deviants or monsters who deliberately seek to damage public health? Is their character as people in question?
There is no evidence that their proposed strategy will work in the longer term but there’s no evidence that the current strategy will either. I just have a problem protecting the rich and those with access to the best healthcare resources at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable. I said here months ago that the West’s response to Covid19 was self indulgent and morally reprehensible and nothing I’ve seen since has changed my mind. first and foremost it is the rich and powerful protecting themselves while dressing it up as some sort of altruistic endeavour.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> What we are doing works already


Does it? We are borrowing €150 a week for every worker in the country with no end in sight. If we lift restrictions enough for the economy to function properly, raising the taxes to pay the doctors and nurses and other “heroes”, the infection rate rises again. Do you think that is sustainable for another year? Another two years? Exactly how much debt should we foist on our children, how much of their education should we sacrifice, how many millions of people will we let die in other poor countries to protect a small proportion of our rich white lives before it’s not worth it?


----------



## Sophrosyne

We could lift restrictions if people follow health advice. People could resume employment.
The rest is noise.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Do they? I didn’t read that.



It is in their video:

Reaching Immunity | A Private Summit of Epidemiologists Against Lockdowns

Sunetra Gupta said the the focused protection wouldn't last forever. It could be 3 months.


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> So one in 50 people are tired after 30 days. Lots of minor illnesses result in minor symptoms in a small number of patients weeks and months later. The hysterical nonsense that a large cohort of people have severe symptoms months later is totally bogus.



I don't get your fascination with these guys. It's driven by a crowd who are against centralised government in general and they're using Covid as a Trojan horse. It's a Libertarian think tank essentially.

Academy of medical sciences response here... 





__





						Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices | The Academy of Medical Sciences
					






					acmedsci.ac.uk
				




Though... Maybe it is the libertarian aspect that you agree with. In which case... Fine.


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> Though... Maybe it is the libertarian aspect that you agree with. In which case... Fine.


No, it’s the opposite of that, (can you post a link to your accusation that they are anti centralised government and that this is a Trojan Horse?)

It’s not a fascination. Theirs is a counter view and it’s worth looking at. I take a global perspective as I consider every life of equal value, no matter their ethnicity or their colour. In that context our current policies are utterly devastating.
I am relatively unaffected by the current policies. My job hasn’t really been hit and I still see friends etc within the limits of the restrictions. I have no personal axe to grind. I am simply looking at the global economic consequences of the policies of the rich world, as anyone who thinks that they won’t have a horrific impact on the poorest people in the world isn’t really thinking.
I don’t know the answer but I know It isn’t what we are doing now. If we were committing to borrowing an extra 25% to prop up those economies which need it most then crack on but we’re not and we won’t.


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> Academy of medical sciences response here...


In the context of my concerns I find that letter/response as myopic as It is ironic.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> I am simply looking at the global economic consequences of the policies of the rich world, as anyone who thinks that they won’t have a horrific impact on the poorest people in the world isn’t really thinking.



I agree. If anyone thinks that upon a vaccine being found and distributed globally that the economies of the world will start to return to the ways things were, I think they are deluded. Firstly, we cannot discount the emergence of a Covid20, or Covid2_x_ 
This mere prospect is enough to know that, in order to avoid major political and economic upheaval in the decade ahead, we are now on the cusp of a new economic order. 
The limitations of measurements like GDP and profit and loss are exposed now. I'm not saying they don't serve a significant function, but they are deficient in themselves. 
In 2010 when we were running deficits of €20-€30bn our interest rate went to 12% and we entered a bailout program. Today we are running a deficit of 6% of GDP and interest rates remain at 0% -  (projected deficits of ) Germany 7%, France 11%, Italy 10%, Netherlands 11% should, in general economic theory mean that interest rates should be shooting up, instead they are 0%. The fiscal pact is dead - a useful instrument for an economic order that cannot envisage change. Change is the only constant and the limitations of the eurozone fiscal pact have been torn apart by a microscopic virus. 

So how to avoid the poorest of the world getting screwed over is a tall order and history gives no reason for optimism. 
However, I also think that we are truly living in an age of technological revolution and the world will be a radically different place in 10yrs than it is now, including, hopefully, an economic system that does not constantly jack-boot the lives of the poorest.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> So one in 50 people are tired after 30 days. Lots of minor illnesses result in minor symptoms in a small number of patients weeks and months later. The hysterical nonsense that a large cohort of people have severe symptoms months later is totally bogus.



Some people are tired? That's your description of Chronic fatigue syndrome? I
Their notions for 'protecting the vulnerabe' demonstrate they don't give a damn about doing so. Let them die.
That's the general thrust of the Great Barringotn Declaration. They dont want to know.

Hysterical nonsense - I don't see any of that, I have heard a lot of people use that phrase dimissively about covid concerns, without any real basis or foundation.
Entirely reasonable and legitimate to be concerned about the long term implications of so many people being infected with a severe new disease.
The concerns may not be realised, but that is a totally different thing to saying that the basis for them is bogus.


----------



## bradyassoc

It appears Reddit has censored discussion of the Great Barrington Declaration and Google has removed it from their search engine results, only articles about it now.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Entirely reasonable and legitimate to be concerned about the long term implications of so many people being infected with a severe new disease.


Where is the imperial evidence showing that Chronic Fatigue is a statistically significant  outcome from Covid19? What proportion of people who catch Covid19 can expect to experience “long covid”? Of them who can expect to suffer significant problems more than 60 days later? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this is anything other that a very fringe issue.
It’s not entirely reasonable to use that as a justification for condemning millions of people to die of something else.

I really don’t understand why you are ascribing such base motives to the doctors and scientists who are leading this group. Why do you think they want people to die? Do they have a collective desire to inflict gratuitous suffering on a public that they have to date spent their lives trying to help?Are they part of some sort of James Bond type grand conspiracy?
Or to they have genuine concerns about the current consensus based on their expertise?


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> I agree. If anyone thinks that upon a vaccine being found and distributed globally that the economies of the world will start to return to the ways things were, I think they are deluded. Firstly, we cannot discount the emergence of a Covid20, or Covid2_x_
> This mere prospect is enough to know that, in order to avoid major political and economic upheaval in the decade ahead, we are now on the cusp of a new economic order.
> The limitations of measurements like GDP and profit and loss are exposed now. I'm not saying they don't serve a significant function, but they are deficient in themselves.
> In 2010 when we were running deficits of €20-€30bn our interest rate went to 12% and we entered a bailout program. Today we are running a deficit of 6% of GDP and interest rates remain at 0% -  (projected deficits of ) Germany 7%, France 11%, Italy 10%, Netherlands 11% should, in general economic theory mean that interest rates should be shooting up, instead they are 0%. The fiscal pact is dead - a useful instrument for an economic order that cannot envisage change. Change is the only constant and the limitations of the eurozone fiscal pact have been torn apart by a microscopic virus.
> 
> So how to avoid the poorest of the world getting screwed over is a tall order and history gives no reason for optimism.
> However, I also think that we are truly living in an age of technological revolution and the world will be a radically different place in 10yrs than it is now, including, hopefully, an economic system that does not constantly jack-boot the lives of the poorest.


I’d love to agree with you.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Where is the imperial evidence showing that Chronic Fatigue is a statistically significant  outcome from Covid19? What proportion of people who catch Covid19 can expect to experience “long covid”? Of them who can expect to suffer significant problems more than 60 days later? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this is anything other that a very fringe issue.
> It’s not entirely reasonable to use that as a justification for *condemning millions of people to die of something else.*



The premise is completely false. Nobody is condemning millions of people to die of something else.
I repeat entirely reasonable to be concerned about long Covid  we are only months into this pandemic, simply put the studies aren't available either way which is why the precautionary principle must be adopted before letting this virus rip through society.



> I really don’t understand why you are ascribing such base motives to the doctors and scientists who are leading this group. Why do you think they want people to die? Do they have a collective desire to inflict gratuitous suffering on a public that they have to date spent their lives trying to help?Are they part of some sort of James Bond type grand conspiracy?
> Or to they have genuine concerns about the current consensus based on their expertise?



I don't think they want people to die, but they are obviously unconcerned with the deaths and ICU admissions of the vulnerable and non-vulnerable to which their plan will lead to.
I find it very strange that earlier in the thread one of your criticisms for NPHET was they they lacked empthay and questioned their base motives (i.e. they will still be paid).
Yet you support the Great Barrington Declaration whose plan to protect care homes is... let enough care home staff get infected with immunity.
Much empthay being shown there for care home staff and their families?
Bearing in mind this will kill and send to ICU a certain % of even non-vulnerable workers, should we even know in advance whether they are vulnerable or not.


----------



## joe sod

Sophrosyne said:


> We could lift restrictions if people follow health advice. People could resume employment.
> The rest is noise.


Despite having the heaviest restrictions in Europe for the longest period. we still have now amongst the highest corona incidences, the restrictions are not working. *The rest is noise !!*

Of course _the rest is not noise _I would never make a simplistic statement like that. For every simplistic statement there is also an equally forceful refutation.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> The premise is completely false. Nobody is condemning millions of people to die of something else.


 So you don’t think that actions which cause tens of millions of people who literally live from week to week to not have an income to buy food will result in them starving?
[





odyssey06 said:


> I repeat entirely reasonable to be concerned about long Covid  we are only months into this pandemic, simply put the studies aren't available either way which is why the precautionary principle must be adopted before letting this virus rip through society.


 It’s entirely reasonable to worry about something which may happen and so far has shown to actually happen in a very small number of cases with generally mild and relatively short term symptoms. It is not even slightly reasonable to react in such a way that will have gross and catastrophic consequences for millions of people elsewhere. That is certainly hysterical.




odyssey06 said:


> I don't think they want people to die, but they are obviously unconcerned with the deaths and ICU admissions of the vulnerable and non-vulnerable to which their plan will lead to.
> I find it very strange that earlier in the thread one of your criticisms for NPHET was they they lacked empthay and questioned their base motives (i.e. they will still be paid).


 I said that NEPHT members may lack empathy due to their generally privileged and cosseted background. I certainly didn’t question their base motives. It is entirely reasonable to also ask the same question of this group, as it is unfair to level the same latter accusation.


odyssey06 said:


> Yet you support the Great Barrington Declaration whose plan to protect care homes is... let enough care home staff get infected with immunity.
> Much empthay being shown there for care home staff and their families?


 what evidence is there that the proposed method will result in a higher number of deaths? The reason deaths were so high in Care Homes during the initial phase was their protocols on respiratory difficulties (which I outlined in a previous thread), the lack of PPE and the lack of other specific protocols.
I do not support the Great Barrington Declaration, I think it is worthy of consideration, free from hostility and preconceptions which would render such consideration worthless.


odyssey06 said:


> Bearing in mind this will kill and send to ICU a certain % of even non-vulnerable workers, should we even know in advance whether they are vulnerable or not.


 how do you know it will have a greater net impact on total Covid19 deaths, let alone total deaths due to the pandemic?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> how do you know it will have a greater net impact on total Covid19 deaths, let alone total deaths due to the pandemic?



Surely you know that yourself @Purple.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Surely you know that yourself @Purple.


No. I don’t.
The impact of the slowdown of the global economy on poor people around the world (real as opposed to relative poverty) is catastrophic and it will only get worse. Tens of millions of people are at risk of starvation. Decades of economic and social advancement  are in jeopardy. That is an absolute certainty.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Right. Then think out the global impact on the poor of the free spread of the virus to inadequate or non-existent health systems if and until herd immunity is achieved.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> So you don’t think that actions which cause tens of millions of people who literally live from week to week to not have an income to buy food will result in them starving?



It is a non-sequitur argument, with no standing as to how Ireland should respond to a lockdown.
What, is our Taoiseach supposed to phone Imran Khan before deciding whether to move Ireland up or down a Level?
Does Imran Khan gives us this privilege when deciding what restrictions to apply in Pakistan?
Or how much to spend on his military budget?
It's an absurd position not worthy of serious consideration, which is why I hve highlighted how ridiculous it is.
It would require an unknowable level of knowledge.



> what evidence is there that the proposed method will result in a higher number of deaths?
> how do you know it will have a greater net impact on total Covid19 deaths, let alone total deaths due to the pandemic?



You are asking me to provide evidence when they provide NONE? These are supposed to be the 'experts' yet can't even put that together.
Their proposed method has no evidence. It is fantasy stuff, reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.
A proposal worthy of serious consideration prepared by so-called experts, would have attempted to outline who are vulnerable, who are not vulnerable, the deaths and ICU attenidng to these groups in pursuit of herd immiunity. based on defined inputs of % of herd immunity needed, longevity of immunity, how are public health systems supposed to cope with the flood of ICU admissions if we stand back and let this virus run its natural course.
This is not a serious proposal, it is fantasy stuff.


----------



## EmmDee

Purple said:


> No, it’s the opposite of that, (can you post a link to your accusation that they are anti centralised government and that this is a Trojan Horse?)



Its from the American Institute for Economic Research. 









						American Institute for Economic Research - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> It is a non-sequitur argument, with no standing as to how Ireland should respond to a lockdown.
> What, is our Taoiseach supposed to phone Imran Khan before deciding whether to move Ireland up or down a Level?
> Does Imran Khan gives us this privilege when deciding what restrictions to apply in Pakistan?
> Or how much to spend on his military budget?
> It's an absurd position not worthy of serious consideration, which is why I hve highlighted how ridiculous it is.
> It would require an unknowable level of knowledge


You really can’t see that reducing international trade from the poorest countries in the world will cause starvation and suffering? Your response is at best obtuse. I’m sure you are aware of the political and economic history of Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa and the ongoing political and economic colonialism they are subjected to. I’m sure people made the same arguments you are making in drawing rooms in London about Ireland during the famine.


----------



## Purple

EmmDee said:


> Its from the American Institute for Economic Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Institute for Economic Research - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Thanks. I’m not a fan of “isms” as ideology is the enemy of reason but I am also strongly against tariffs and things like the Common Agricultural Policy as it caused untold suffering and poverty and causes massive levels of environmental damage. In short they are worth listening to though they seem to be coming at this from their own Strong ideological perspective.


----------



## WolfeTone

odyssey06 said:


> I repeat entirely reasonable to be concerned about long Covid we are only months into this pandemic, simply put the studies aren't available either way which is why the precautionary principle must be adopted before letting this virus rip through society.



'Long Covid' - I've done a few searches on this and the earliest reference I can find is 14 Jul 2020.
As there are no studies, adopting a precautionary principle is fine, but that principle needs to be defined and set out what's involved.
I don't recall what (if any) precautionary principle was applied with any other virus outbreak with unknown consequences.
HIV, for example, caused quite a scare in the 1980's. Initial fears were it could be spread through saliva (kissing) and handshaking, and that large groups of the population could already be affected. 
There was no lockdown, because there was no conclusive or significant studies that supported these views.
Without scientific studies , 'Long Covid' belongs in the scare-mongering category.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Right. Then think out the global impact on the poor of the free spread of the virus to inadequate or non-existent health systems if and until herd immunity is achieved.


There will be the free spread of the virus in the countries with the poorest and most inadequate health systems. It will happen because the choice will be risk infection or face starvation.
What is at question is whether or not the inadequate funds that they currently have will be reduced significantly due to the economic consequences of the locking down of the richest countries with the best and most advanced healthcare systems.


----------



## odyssey06

WolfeTone said:


> 'Long Covid' - I've done a few searches on this and the earliest reference I can find is 14 Jul 2020.
> As there are no studies, adopting a precautionary principle is fine, but that principle needs to be defined and set out what's involved.
> I don't recall what (if any) precautionary principle was applied with any other virus outbreak with unknown consequences.
> HIV, for example, caused quite a scare in the 1980's. Initial fears were it could be spread through saliva (kissing) and handshaking, and that large groups of the population could already be affected.
> There was no lockdown, because there was no conclusive or significant studies that supported these views.
> Without scientific studies , 'Long Covid' belongs in the scare-mongering category.



Investigation of transmission is quicker than investigation of these deeper issues.
These studies take time, and understandably initial focus has been on how does this transmit, how can we treat it in hospital, vaccine studies.
We're less than a year into this.

It is reasonable to expect that there will be long term complications affecting a certain % from this virus e.g. based on those seriously impacted by flu. And this is a more severe disease than flu - it has killed more people in 8 months than flu has done in the past 5 seasons in the US.

I don't remember any discussions about lockdown for AIDS full stop do you? Was hospital capacity under threat from it?
AIDS itself is a long term disease. And the scale of this outbreak dwarfs that of AIDS in the 1980s. It is an entirely different order of threat.
We only went into lockdown for covid when its potential to infect large sections of society became clear.

To suggest it is scare mongering - NADA. No basis for that whatsoever.
It is something that needs to be considered in the balance if someone is advocating herd immunity versus lockdown\restrictions along with - number of deaths and hospitalisations for both cohorts, how do we tell who the cohorts are, how will hospitals cope with influx of seriously sick, and the longer term complications resulting from said infections.


----------



## WolfeTone

odyssey06 said:


> It is reasonable to expect that there will be long term complications affecting a certain % from this virus e.g. based on those seriously impacted by flu. And this is a more severe disease than flu.



It is reasonable to investigate if there will be long term complications, of course. But at the moment the studies/information is not there. Public policy cannot be derived from unfounded expectations or assumptions. 
The decision to lockdown was based on a calculation of a transmission rate that pointed to the prospect of overwhelming the health services. 
There is no/little data available that suggests 'Long covid' is a factor supporting public policy of restrictions on economic activity. 

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting 'long Covid' is not an issue, or doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that there is little to zero evidence that it's impact, if any, warrants restrictions imposed on economic activity. 
That it is creeping into the discourse, as a factor to support on-going and perhaps further restrictions, is a worry. 



odyssey06 said:


> I don't remember any discussions about lockdown for AIDS full stop do you? Was hospital capacity under threat from it?



Yes, that is my point, there were none as I recall. Despite at the time, it's perceived potential to be transmitted rapidly through the population via saliva, handshaking etc. 
There simply wasn't the scientific evidence to back these notions up so the public policy response was not framed around such notions. Ditto 'Long Covid'. Until there is scientific evidence to support it, then it should not be a factor in framing the public policy response.


----------



## odyssey06

WolfeTone said:


> It is reasonable to investigate if there will be long term complications, of course. But at the moment the studies/information is not there. Public policy cannot be derived from unfounded expectations or assumptions...
> Yes, that is my point, there were none as I recall. Despite at the time, it's perceived potential to be transmitted rapidly through the population via saliva, handshaking etc.
> There simply wasn't the scientific evidence to back these notions up so the public policy response was not framed around such notions. Ditto 'Long Covid'. Until there is scientific evidence to support it, then it should not be a factor in framing the public policy response.



Public policy is based on reasonable expectation where there is a potential risk that needs to be investigated and until that investigation is complete, precaution is advisable.

I don't remember anyone during the AIDS epidemic advocating herd immunity as a strategy.
The framers of the Great Barrington Declaration are advocating what amounts to a natural vaccine strategy.

Lab made vaccines are to be held to the standard of proving that they do not have serious side effects, long term complications in different cohorts of society etc.

Anyone advocating a 'natural vaccine' approach needs to be held to a similar level of account.


----------



## Purple

So now the WHO is saying that Lockdowns shouldn't be the main weapon used to fight Covid19 as they make poor countries poorer. Source. Do these guys have some sort of evil right-wing agenda as well or are they just not advocating selfish and myopic actions which have disproportionate and devastating consequences elsewhere?


----------



## WolfeTone

odyssey06 said:


> Public policy is based on reasonable expectation where there is a potential risk that needs to be investigated and until that investigation is complete, precaution is advisable.



Yes, but that 'reasonable expectation' has to be based on fact. There are no studies or data, as you have mentioned, with regard to 'Long Covid' and its potential impact on the health services. So it is unreasonable to use it as a factor for framing public policy. 



odyssey06 said:


> I don't remember anyone during the AIDS epidemic advocating herd immunity as a strategy.
> The framers of the Great Barrington Declaration are advocating what amounts to a natural vaccine strategy.



Just for the record, I'm not overly enthused by Great Barrington Declaration either. Plenty of holes, not least the ability of Joe soap citizen to sign up as a professional medic to endorse it.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I don't remember anyone during the AIDS epidemic advocating herd immunity as a strategy.


AIDS was 100% fatal at that stage. Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people will die from AIDS this year. The same number died of it last year. That number will grow significantly due to the increase in Drug prices caused by Covid19. From this link;

*HIV and COVID-19*


_A new analysis by UNAIDS has revealed the potential impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic could have in low- and middle-income countries around the world on supplies of the generic antiretroviral medicines used to treat HIV._
_The lockdowns and border closures imposed to stop COVID-19 are impacting both the production of medicines and their distribution, potentially leading to increases in their cost and to supply issues._
_It has been estimated that the final cost of exported antiretroviral medicines from India could be between 10% and 25% higher than normal prices._

_*Recent modelling has estimated that a six-month complete disruption in HIV treatment could lead to more than 500 000 [471 000–673 000] additional deaths from AIDS-related illnesses.*_
_If services to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV were similarly halted for six months, the estimated increases in new child HIV infections would be 162% in Malawi, 139% in Uganda, 106% in Zimbabwe and 83% in Mozambique._


----------



## Purple

From the WHO link above;

_The Director General also spoke about the impracticality of lockdowns in countries with weaker economies, similar to the statements made by Dr Nabarro to The Spectator.

"In countries with large poor populations, the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions used in some high-income countries may not be practical.

"Many poor people, migrants and refugees are already living in overcrowded conditions with few resources and little access to healthcare.

"How do you survive a lockdown when you depend on your daily labour to eat?"
_


----------



## bradyassoc

odyssey06 said:


> Public policy is based on reasonable expectation where there is a potential risk that needs to be investigated and until that investigation is complete, precaution is advisable.
> 
> I don't remember anyone during the AIDS epidemic advocating herd immunity as a strategy.
> The framers of the Great Barrington Declaration are advocating what amounts to a natural vaccine strategy.
> 
> Lab made vaccines are to be held to the standard of proving that they do not have serious side effects, long term complications in different cohorts of society etc.
> 
> Anyone advocating a 'natural vaccine' approach needs to be held to a similar level of account.



We will reach herd immunity sooner or later whatever strategy we employ.


----------



## Purple

bradyassoc said:


> We will reach herd immunity sooner or later whatever strategy we employ.


Not if we get a readily available vaccine which is more than 80% effective. I think that is likely given the nature of the virus.


----------



## bradyassoc

Purple said:


> Not if we get a readily available vaccine which is more than 80% effective. I think that is likely given the nature of the virus.



We will reach herd immunity either through a vaccine, national infection or a combination of the two.


----------



## Purple

bradyassoc said:


> We will reach herd immunity either through a vaccine, national infection or a combination of the two.


Yea, fair point. Probably a combination of the two.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> 'Long Covid' - I've done a few searches on this and the earliest reference I can find is 14 Jul 2020.



Are you searching for data on studies on persisting symptoms or a phrase that was only coined around then?

There have been numerous studies suggesting long term effects from COVID-19, with cardiologists linking persisting fatigue with long term or permanent damage to the heart. A lot more work is needed before there is a better understanding of the implications though. Most studies to date focus on hospitalised cases, as data is much easier come by there. This  from March shows almost 20% suffering cardiac injury, another pre-review study records 74% showing signs of fatigue a month after discharge. The British Heart Foundation  funding of 6 research programs in June.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> Are you searching for data on studies on persisting symptoms or a phrase that was only coined around then?



Either, or both.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Either, or both.



Time to brush up on the google skills!


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Are you searching for data on studies on persisting symptoms or a phrase that was only coined around then?
> 
> There have been numerous studies suggesting long term effects from COVID-19, with cardiologists linking persisting fatigue with long term or permanent damage to the heart. A lot more work is needed before there is a better understanding of the implications though. Most studies to date focus on hospitalised cases, as data is much easier come by there. This  from March shows almost 20% suffering cardiac injury, another pre-review study records 74% showing signs of fatigue a month after discharge. The British Heart Foundation  funding of 6 research programs in June.


Okay, so 74% of hospitalised cases. That's 74.% of 20% or 14.8% of those who are infected. So out of every person who is diagnosed 14.8% are still suffering from fatigue a month later. I'd like to see comparable data for over 65's who get the seasonal flu. 4% of those diagnosed seem to be suffering cardiac injury. What is their profile? Are most of them suffering from a pre-existing heart condition? 
What are the same statistics for the same group with other respiratory tract infections? 
If you are old and have a pre-existing condition many viruses can have longer term consequences. The narrative that there is some hidden consequences, some kind of health timebomb, from Covid19 which is far greater than similar infections is totally unsupported by the evidence at this stage.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> That's 74.% of 20% or 14.8% of those who are infected.



No, they're two separate studies, but if you're suggesting that only those hospitalised are suffering from this issue then I'm afraid it does not look like that's the case. Similar early stage small-scale studies () are suggesting cardiac damage is a significant issue, and damage levels are not consistent with severity of COVID symptoms.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> No, they're two separate studies, but if you're suggesting that only those hospitalised are suffering from this issue then I'm afraid it does not look like that's the case. Similar early stage small-scale studies () are suggesting cardiac damage is a significant issue, and damage levels are not consistent with severity of COVID symptoms.


So they are testing for Troponin the "Heart Attack Enzyme". What isn't known, and can't be know really at this stage, is what level they had before they were infected and how their levels look over an extended period. In other words is the condition chronic or temporary. It is also unclear what specific health impacts the conditions they have identified will cause. 
In fairness to the authors they note that it didn't include anyone under 18 or anyone who was completely asymptomatic. Given that 80% of patients are mind *or *asymptomatic I'm not sure what proportion of those infected were actually represented with the test group; In other words in relation to heart damage is it 74% of 100%, 50% or 20%?
What I don't understand from the link is what the difference is between morbidity and mortality. I was under the impression both referred to the condition of being dead.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> So they are testing for Troponin the "Heart Attack Enzyme". What isn't known, and can't be know really at this stage, is what level they had before they were infected and how their levels look over an extended period. In other words is the condition chronic or temporary.



Small samples, so very unlikely to be highly representative. The suggestion is these levels are higher in those recovering from COVID that would expected to be the case, they also observe significant incidence of inflammation. I haven't seen a big enough study yet that would really uncover what the scale of concern should be, it'll be some time before the long term implications are fully understood. 



Purple said:


> What I don't understand from the link is what the difference is between morbidity and mortality. I was under the impression both referred to the condition of being dead.



Morbitity generally refers to the condition that led to mortality.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> From the WHO link above;
> _The Director General also spoke about the impracticality of lockdowns in countries with weaker economies, similar to the statements made by Dr Nabarro to The Spectator._



Well if you are going to cite the WHO as an authority this is their rebuttal of the concept of herd immunity...

The World Health Organization chief has warned against suggestions by some to just allow Covid-19 to spread in the hope of achieving so-called herd immunity, saying this was "unethical"...
Relying on naturally obtaining herd immunity in such a situation would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", Mr Tedros said.
"Allowing a dangerous virus that we don't fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It's not an option."
He pointed to lacking information on the development of immunity to Covid-19, including how strong the immune response is and how long antibodies remain in the body.
He also pointed out that it has been estimated that less than 10% of the population in most countries are believed to have contracted the disease.
"The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus," he said.









						WHO: Letting Covid spread for herd immunity 'unethical'
					

The World Health Organization chief has warned against suggestions by some to just allow Covid-19 to spread in the hope of achieving so-called herd immunity, saying this was "unethical".




					www.rte.ie


----------



## WolfeTone

Has WHO got its knickers in a twist? No lockdowns, but no allowing it to spread for herd immunity either. 

What to do?


----------



## mtk

WolfeTone said:


> Has WHO got its knickers in a twist? No lockdowns, but no allowing it to spread for herd immunity either.
> 
> What to do?


agree
they seem to keep saying nobody/no country  has got it right...so what should we do ?!


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Well if you are going to cite the WHO as an authority this is their rebuttal of the concept of herd immunity...
> 
> The World Health Organization chief has warned against suggestions by some to just allow Covid-19 to spread in the hope of achieving so-called herd immunity, saying this was "unethical"...
> Relying on naturally obtaining herd immunity in such a situation would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", Mr Tedros said.
> "Allowing a dangerous virus that we don't fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It's not an option."
> He pointed to lacking information on the development of immunity to Covid-19, including how strong the immune response is and how long antibodies remain in the body.
> He also pointed out that it has been estimated that less than 10% of the population in most countries are believed to have contracted the disease.
> "The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus," he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO: Letting Covid spread for herd immunity 'unethical'
> 
> 
> The World Health Organization chief has warned against suggestions by some to just allow Covid-19 to spread in the hope of achieving so-called herd immunity, saying this was "unethical".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rte.ie


I'm not advocating Heard Immunity. I'm pointing out the devastation we are causing in other parts of the world due to our actions and I am questioning the morality of such actions in that context.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> Has WHO got its knickers in a twist? No lockdowns, but no allowing it to spread for herd immunity either.
> 
> What to do?


The WHO are saying the lockdowns pause the spread but do not prevent it and are a short term breathing space while countries get their health services in order. Unfortunately our health services are structurally unfit for purpose so despite the vast amounts of money we spend on them we will be unable to get our act together. This is one of the many downsides of encouraging what are essentially public servants to have hero complexes. Because of our inability to restructure our health services and the unwillingness of those who work in it to engage in any real reforms not only are people dying in our country but we are now causing vastly more to die in other countries. 
So, what do we do? Well to all those who work in the health service, from top to bottom, engage in structural and meaningful reform and stop causing needless death and suffering. That would be a good start.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> So, what do we do? Well to all those who work in the health service, from top to bottom, engage in structural and meaningful reform and stop causing needless death and suffering. That would be a good start.



True, one avenue would be to abolish the two-tier system of subsidising private health insurance for nothing more than a que jumping system. The earnings available to medical professional practitioners is too good to turn down, leaving the public system in a constant state of neglect. As a former govt Minister said, who would pay private health insurance if the public system could provide the same service? Meaning, the public system has to be in a constant state of flux and deterioration, or at least perceiveably so, to make the private system attractive enough for people to cough up more funds.


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> True, one avenue would be to abolish the two-tier system of subsidising private health insurance for nothing more than a que jumping system. The earnings available to medical professional practitioners is too good to turn down, leaving the public system in a constant state of neglect. As a former govt Minister said, who would pay private health insurance if the public system could provide the same service? Meaning, the public system has to be in a constant state of flux and deterioration, or at least perceiveably so, to make the private system attractive enough for people to cough up more funds.


I don't care how the system is structured as long as it works. The Belgian healthcare system is said to be the best in Europe and it is almost totally publically funded but 80% privately delivered. That matters is good structures, good management and good oversight and no vested interest group with an effective veto over reforms. A two tier system isn't desirable but ultimately private health insurance policy holders pump billions of additional funding into the overall health system. I don't see that as a cost.
Two thirds of GP's are women but the majority of GP hours are worked by men. That means that female GP's are working an average of less than 18 hours a week. Of course they are perfectly entitled to do so but the State spend over a third of a million Euro putting through college so maybe a bit of gratitude would be appropriate. At the very least extremely lucrative GMS contracts should stipulate the minimum contact hours which must be worked each week.

I don't want to turn this into yet another thread about the health service but its gross inadequacies are at the heart of why we have to respond to the Covid19 pandemic in the way do are.


----------



## WolfeTone

WolfeTone said:


> If anyone thinks that upon a vaccine being found and distributed globally that the economies of the world will start to return to the ways things were, I think they are deluded. Firstly, we cannot discount the emergence of a Covid20, or Covid2_x_



This is my biggest fear. That Covid19 turns out to be the first strain of multiple strains that mutate and emerge over the next decade or so 

Denmark to cull mink herd after mutated strain found in humans


----------



## Purple

WolfeTone said:


> This is my biggest fear. That Covid19 turns out to be the first strain of multiple strains that mutate and emerge over the next decade or so
> 
> Denmark to cull mink herd after mutated strain found in humans


The really striking thing in that story is the amount of Mink being farmed in Denmark.


----------

