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?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
The Great Barrington Declaration
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
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.
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
Yes, as are most new positions
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
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?
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.
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.
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
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..
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
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.
Ultimately yes, but NPHET has the capacity to 'nudge' that behaviour.
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 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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
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.
Fair enough, politicians come from a very diverse background and are a good cross section of society.
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.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
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
We could lift restrictions if people follow health advice. People could resume employment.
The rest is noise.
The rest is noise.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
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.
Last edited: