The Great Barrington Declaration

[EmmDee]

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

acmedsci.ac.uk

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

 

[Purple]

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]

Academy of medical sciences response here...

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

 

[WolfeTone]

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 Covid2x
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]

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]

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]

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 Covid2x
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]

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]

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]

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?
[

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.