The Great Barrington Declaration

[odyssey06]

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

www.sciencemediacentre.org

 

[Purple]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

Some mutate and change frequently, unlike Corona Viruses.

You sure about that?

 

[Purple]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Good point

 

[odyssey06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

Really?

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.

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.

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]

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?