The Great Barrington Declaration

[odyssey06]

'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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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

Either, or both.

 

[Leo]

Either, or both.

Time to brush up on the google skills!

 

[Purple]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?