Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) 21:57 - Oct 13 with 2454 viewsHARRY10

After 42 Tories rebelled over lock down in Parliament tonight, some may be wondering if this is now the way forward -

"An international group of scientists has called on governments to overturn their coronavirus strategies and allow young and healthy people to return to normal life while protecting the most vulnerable.

The proposal, drawn up by three researchers but signed by many more, argues for letting the virus spread in low-risk groups in the hope of achieving “herd immunity”, where enough of the population is resistant to the virus to quell the pandemic.


" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/06/scientists-call-for-herd-immunity-




1

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:00 - Oct 13 with 1400 viewsSpruceMoose

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-b

Poll: Selectamod

0
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:06 - Oct 13 with 1368 viewsHARRY10

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:00 - Oct 13 by SpruceMoose

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-b


Rather disturbing reading both of those

But that the right are behind

"With nearly half of the population having some underlying health risk for Covid-19, he said herd immunity strategies were about “culling the herd of the sick and disabled. It’s grotesque.”

should not come as too much of a shock
1
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:08 - Oct 13 with 1356 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:06 - Oct 13 by HARRY10

Rather disturbing reading both of those

But that the right are behind

"With nearly half of the population having some underlying health risk for Covid-19, he said herd immunity strategies were about “culling the herd of the sick and disabled. It’s grotesque.”

should not come as too much of a shock


If anything Covid has helped speed up the long term goals of their never ending austerity ideology.

To paraphrase Badger, fook the Conservatives and fook anyone who votes for them.
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:09]

Poll: Selectamod

0

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:13 - Oct 13 with 1364 viewsBlueBadger

In short, no, it's not. Young people 'going back to their normal lives' is, at least in part, what's fuelling the current upsurge in cases and hospital admission.


So the numbers are significantly up and increasing. by BlueBadger 12 Oct 20:34
The issue is shielding the vulnerable.
The problem is basically twofold -

1 - How do we achieve that? Many vulnerable people live in care homes, many more live at home with visiting or live-in carers, be they family or paid carers. All of them will have extended families who will be working and mingling with the general public. Paid mobile carers in particular, are a massive potential vector for infection.

2 - How do we identify who needs shielding? By May 2020 some 2.2 million people were identified in May as 'extremely vulnerable' and were advised to take maximal shielding precautions. What do we do with those who are vulnerable but not in the extreme category? What are the criteria?
On top of that, you've always got an uncertain number of people with current dormant underlying conditions that would be likely triggered and exacerbated by a dose of covid-19.

On top of that, we've seen that 'long covid' happens in as many as 12% of symptomatic cases in the community(and the incidence appears higher in the hospitalised cohort) may be at risk of prolonged symptoms, of, at best, indeterminate length, plus we don't know how long immunity, in the form of antibodies lasts and evidence is emerging that you can be re-infected. In view of the above, attempting herd immunity by 'letting rip' is somewhat ethically problematic, to say the least.



It's deeply, deeply flawed science and frankly, somewhat unethical to try it,
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:17]

FOPRP.
Poll: Why wouldn't you join Fishers' 'PRP out' protest?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

9
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:15 - Oct 13 with 1327 viewsHARRY10

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:08 - Oct 13 by SpruceMoose

If anything Covid has helped speed up the long term goals of their never ending austerity ideology.

To paraphrase Badger, fook the Conservatives and fook anyone who votes for them.
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:09]


the latter most especially

the former I never expect any better - the latter I expect to have learned by now
2
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:15 - Oct 13 with 1323 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:13 - Oct 13 by BlueBadger

In short, no, it's not. Young people 'going back to their normal lives' is, at least in part, what's fuelling the current upsurge in cases and hospital admission.


So the numbers are significantly up and increasing. by BlueBadger 12 Oct 20:34
The issue is shielding the vulnerable.
The problem is basically twofold -

1 - How do we achieve that? Many vulnerable people live in care homes, many more live at home with visiting or live-in carers, be they family or paid carers. All of them will have extended families who will be working and mingling with the general public. Paid mobile carers in particular, are a massive potential vector for infection.

2 - How do we identify who needs shielding? By May 2020 some 2.2 million people were identified in May as 'extremely vulnerable' and were advised to take maximal shielding precautions. What do we do with those who are vulnerable but not in the extreme category? What are the criteria?
On top of that, you've always got an uncertain number of people with current dormant underlying conditions that would be likely triggered and exacerbated by a dose of covid-19.

On top of that, we've seen that 'long covid' happens in as many as 12% of symptomatic cases in the community(and the incidence appears higher in the hospitalised cohort) may be at risk of prolonged symptoms, of, at best, indeterminate length, plus we don't know how long immunity, in the form of antibodies lasts and evidence is emerging that you can be re-infected. In view of the above, attempting herd immunity by 'letting rip' is somewhat ethically problematic, to say the least.



It's deeply, deeply flawed science and frankly, somewhat unethical to try it,
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:17]


What do you mean I might kill Granny if I go on a pub crawl and take frivolous foreign holidays with the lads?!

Oh well. Sorry Gran.

Poll: Selectamod

-3
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:25 - Oct 13 with 1287 viewsbournemouthblue

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:15 - Oct 13 by SpruceMoose

What do you mean I might kill Granny if I go on a pub crawl and take frivolous foreign holidays with the lads?!

Oh well. Sorry Gran.


on a semi unrelated note, Look East had an article on a company who could determine the origin of outbreaks

They seemed to note that several outbreaks in Norwich suggested they had come from Spain and Italy, another example of why would should have been quarantining people returning from problem areas, far earlier on!

Alcohol is the answer but I can't remember the question!
Poll: So how likely is it Taylor will need surgery?

1

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:26 - Oct 13 with 1280 viewsHARRY10

It comes down to being about health or wealth, and the idea behind 'Barrigton' is clearly one solely of wealth - that created by the dsposable workers

At the moment the battle in the UK is about not swamping the hospitals with covid patients, while still keeping the economy going as best it can.

Personally I think things could have, and still should be done better. But whatever is done the paramount aim will be that of the hospitals. Swamp them with covid patients and the whole service will suffer..... badly.

So beware the siren voices, as the OP has, that tell you there is a simple way out of this.
0
Login to get fewer ads

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:28 - Oct 13 with 1271 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:25 - Oct 13 by bournemouthblue

on a semi unrelated note, Look East had an article on a company who could determine the origin of outbreaks

They seemed to note that several outbreaks in Norwich suggested they had come from Spain and Italy, another example of why would should have been quarantining people returning from problem areas, far earlier on!


The attitude I've encountered from people who did not self isolate after returning from foreign holidays has been 'The government didn't tell me I had to'.

Naturally, these people are usually the same people who happily ignore government advice on other matters when it suits, leading me to the conclusion that they just pick and choose which advice to follow based on which is aligned with whatever selfish act they want to carry out anyway.
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:29]

Poll: Selectamod

8

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:33 - Oct 13 with 1249 viewsStokieBlue

The GB declaration is getting far too much coverage given the signatories, their standing, the vetting of them and the general concepts of the proposal.

Most scientists disagree with the declaration.

However because it is what some people want it gets a disproportionate amount of publicity.

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

12
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:35 - Oct 13 with 1230 viewsbournemouthblue

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:28 - Oct 13 by SpruceMoose

The attitude I've encountered from people who did not self isolate after returning from foreign holidays has been 'The government didn't tell me I had to'.

Naturally, these people are usually the same people who happily ignore government advice on other matters when it suits, leading me to the conclusion that they just pick and choose which advice to follow based on which is aligned with whatever selfish act they want to carry out anyway.
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:29]


That's why trusting people's 'instincts' is always unwise. The government has been far too flimsy with the whole handling of the crisis.

The total balls up of Track and Trace is exactly why we are where we are now, it should have been in place months ago. It would have helped to suppress and control the virus with smart lock downs, reducing the likelihood of further restrictions coming in now.

Alcohol is the answer but I can't remember the question!
Poll: So how likely is it Taylor will need surgery?

5
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:37 - Oct 13 with 1221 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:33 - Oct 13 by StokieBlue

The GB declaration is getting far too much coverage given the signatories, their standing, the vetting of them and the general concepts of the proposal.

Most scientists disagree with the declaration.

However because it is what some people want it gets a disproportionate amount of publicity.

SB


You mean to say Dr Jonny Bananas isn't an esteemed epidemiologist?!

Poll: Selectamod

4
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:38 - Oct 13 with 1219 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:35 - Oct 13 by bournemouthblue

That's why trusting people's 'instincts' is always unwise. The government has been far too flimsy with the whole handling of the crisis.

The total balls up of Track and Trace is exactly why we are where we are now, it should have been in place months ago. It would have helped to suppress and control the virus with smart lock downs, reducing the likelihood of further restrictions coming in now.


Sadly, Britain seems to have stopped responding to everything and anything in a remotely smart fashion.

Poll: Selectamod

2

And Bradman only went and got them (n/t) on 22:42 - Oct 13 with 1200 viewsMenton


Gareth McCauley in Dead Man's Shoes
Poll: Which of our strikers will get injured for the Republic of Ireland tomorrow?

2
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:13 - Oct 13 with 1153 viewsFunge

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:33 - Oct 13 by StokieBlue

The GB declaration is getting far too much coverage given the signatories, their standing, the vetting of them and the general concepts of the proposal.

Most scientists disagree with the declaration.

However because it is what some people want it gets a disproportionate amount of publicity.

SB


Hang on. The main proposers are from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford Universities.

They've got a Nobel Laureate (Michael Levitt) undersigned, along with, from what I can see, a substantial number of medical professionals with other qualifications thereafter.

The whole purpose of science is to put forward a hypothesis, and then to subsequently look for every possible way to disprove said.

I've no issue at all with people disagreeing with the premise proposed by Barrington - it's a radical proposal, suggesting a full sea-change of pandemic policy, on an issue that is fully divisive. But the wider point raised - that the medium to long-term health costs incurred by lockdown will far outweigh the short-term savings - is worthy of debate.

'Most scientists disagree with the declaration' - nope, some scientists disagree with the declaration; that's to be expected.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:14]
6
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:40 - Oct 13 with 1133 viewsSwansea_Blue

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:13 - Oct 13 by Funge

Hang on. The main proposers are from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford Universities.

They've got a Nobel Laureate (Michael Levitt) undersigned, along with, from what I can see, a substantial number of medical professionals with other qualifications thereafter.

The whole purpose of science is to put forward a hypothesis, and then to subsequently look for every possible way to disprove said.

I've no issue at all with people disagreeing with the premise proposed by Barrington - it's a radical proposal, suggesting a full sea-change of pandemic policy, on an issue that is fully divisive. But the wider point raised - that the medium to long-term health costs incurred by lockdown will far outweigh the short-term savings - is worthy of debate.

'Most scientists disagree with the declaration' - nope, some scientists disagree with the declaration; that's to be expected.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:14]


Levitt's been catastorphically wrong about Covid all the way through, which shouldn't come as a surprise given it's not his thing.

Other signatories include:

Harold Shipman
Dr Johnny Bananas
Dominic Cummings of Durham Univercity [sic]
Dr Person Fakename
Dr Brian Blessed Doctor in Winged Flight
Professor Ita Rôle Italy Pudding and dessert expert
I. P. Freely

"In addition, the letter has been signed by more than 100 therapists, including massage therapists, hypnotherapists, psychotherapists and one Mongolian Khöömii Singer who describes himself as a “therapeutic sound practitioner”.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/2555725/fake-names-counted-as-legit

I wouldn't take it too seriously if I was you.

edit - no, it's most. Most relevant scientists seem to think it's a load of political bollox.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:41]

Poll: So then cake aficionados, which is your favourite part of Battenberg?

3
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:42 - Oct 13 with 1126 viewsStokieBlue

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:13 - Oct 13 by Funge

Hang on. The main proposers are from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford Universities.

They've got a Nobel Laureate (Michael Levitt) undersigned, along with, from what I can see, a substantial number of medical professionals with other qualifications thereafter.

The whole purpose of science is to put forward a hypothesis, and then to subsequently look for every possible way to disprove said.

I've no issue at all with people disagreeing with the premise proposed by Barrington - it's a radical proposal, suggesting a full sea-change of pandemic policy, on an issue that is fully divisive. But the wider point raised - that the medium to long-term health costs incurred by lockdown will far outweigh the short-term savings - is worthy of debate.

'Most scientists disagree with the declaration' - nope, some scientists disagree with the declaration; that's to be expected.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:14]


They have a few well known scientists but the majority of "scientists" who are signatories haven't even been checked - I suggest you read the links posted by Spruce for more information. They are of course many other similar links online if you prefer to find your own.

You are of course correct that science is about putting forward hypothesis and then having them tested and debated. However, in this case the amount of attention given to the hypothesis is disproportionate because certain political and lobbying entities want exactly what the declaration proposes for their own reasons and not due to the health aspects being cited.

I totally disagree with your last sentence, the vast majority of scientists don't agree with the proposal at this time.

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

1
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:47 - Oct 13 with 1117 viewsHARRY10

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:13 - Oct 13 by Funge

Hang on. The main proposers are from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford Universities.

They've got a Nobel Laureate (Michael Levitt) undersigned, along with, from what I can see, a substantial number of medical professionals with other qualifications thereafter.

The whole purpose of science is to put forward a hypothesis, and then to subsequently look for every possible way to disprove said.

I've no issue at all with people disagreeing with the premise proposed by Barrington - it's a radical proposal, suggesting a full sea-change of pandemic policy, on an issue that is fully divisive. But the wider point raised - that the medium to long-term health costs incurred by lockdown will far outweigh the short-term savings - is worthy of debate.

'Most scientists disagree with the declaration' - nope, some scientists disagree with the declaration; that's to be expected.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:14]


The problem with the BD is that it drifts into the cummings world of isolated numbers.

Which is however worthy the 'herd immunity' theory is, the UK does not have the facilities to cope with iris hospital critical care,

As we can only guess at who is likely to be vulnerable we will have a huge number who will undoubtedly become infected and require hospital treatment.

Given that we are heading for maxim capacity already, there can be no valid argument for greatly increasing the probability of speeding to that point of maximum capacity quicker for some, as yet, unproven argument.
0
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:00 - Oct 14 with 1075 viewsFunge

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 23:40 - Oct 13 by Swansea_Blue

Levitt's been catastorphically wrong about Covid all the way through, which shouldn't come as a surprise given it's not his thing.

Other signatories include:

Harold Shipman
Dr Johnny Bananas
Dominic Cummings of Durham Univercity [sic]
Dr Person Fakename
Dr Brian Blessed Doctor in Winged Flight
Professor Ita Rôle Italy Pudding and dessert expert
I. P. Freely

"In addition, the letter has been signed by more than 100 therapists, including massage therapists, hypnotherapists, psychotherapists and one Mongolian Khöömii Singer who describes himself as a “therapeutic sound practitioner”.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/2555725/fake-names-counted-as-legit

I wouldn't take it too seriously if I was you.

edit - no, it's most. Most relevant scientists seem to think it's a load of political bollox.
[Post edited 13 Oct 23:41]


Has Levitt been 'catastrophically' wrong? Here's an article whereupon he admits he's made mistakes - which is surely the point, in line with my comments above - https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/

I've got no issue with that - scientists make mistakes, that's the fundamental premise of proposing hypotheses....

To reiterate, the premise of Barrington (as I see it) is that the short-term benefits afforded from lockdowns/ social restrictions, are far outweighed by the medium/ long-term effects to society. I'm personally in agreement with that.

How we fix that, whether the measures proposed by Barrington will work, or, indeed, whether this whole sorry mess is even fixable (thanks Hancock and Harding) is, of course debatable.
1
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:16 - Oct 14 with 1056 viewsJ2BLUE

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 22:28 - Oct 13 by SpruceMoose

The attitude I've encountered from people who did not self isolate after returning from foreign holidays has been 'The government didn't tell me I had to'.

Naturally, these people are usually the same people who happily ignore government advice on other matters when it suits, leading me to the conclusion that they just pick and choose which advice to follow based on which is aligned with whatever selfish act they want to carry out anyway.
[Post edited 13 Oct 22:29]


This will offend some but I don't care. There is a definite correlation between the type of person who just HAS to take a foreign holiday in the middle of a pandemic and the type of tw@t who would think that the rules about self isolating upon return don't apply to them because they are just so special.

The polls suggesting 80% of people don't bother come as no surprise at all.

Poll: Would you vote Labour to avoid a Boris led government?

4
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:20 - Oct 14 with 1047 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:16 - Oct 14 by J2BLUE

This will offend some but I don't care. There is a definite correlation between the type of person who just HAS to take a foreign holiday in the middle of a pandemic and the type of tw@t who would think that the rules about self isolating upon return don't apply to them because they are just so special.

The polls suggesting 80% of people don't bother come as no surprise at all.


Glad to get your backing here J2 as its something that I have definitely noticed too.

- People who usually reject government advice are now big fans of the portions of it that tell them it's OK to do what they want to do.

- People who usually reject all experts are now big proponents of select experts who back up their actions.

- People who usually treat mental health issues as something to be dealt with by just pulling yourself together are now up in arms about the nation's mental health.

Just some things I've noticed and feel particularly cynical about.
[Post edited 14 Oct 0:24]

Poll: Selectamod

5
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:25 - Oct 14 with 1038 viewsSwansea_Blue

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:00 - Oct 14 by Funge

Has Levitt been 'catastrophically' wrong? Here's an article whereupon he admits he's made mistakes - which is surely the point, in line with my comments above - https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/

I've got no issue with that - scientists make mistakes, that's the fundamental premise of proposing hypotheses....

To reiterate, the premise of Barrington (as I see it) is that the short-term benefits afforded from lockdowns/ social restrictions, are far outweighed by the medium/ long-term effects to society. I'm personally in agreement with that.

How we fix that, whether the measures proposed by Barrington will work, or, indeed, whether this whole sorry mess is even fixable (thanks Hancock and Harding) is, of course debatable.


As far as I’m aware he’s not actually done any science on it. It’s all option pieces from a position of non expertise, so not something to build a policy on. Scientists do make mistakes which is why repeatability (leading to consensus) is important. That’s not the case with this letter. It’s politically driven.

I agree that the chronic affects of this disease haven’t been given enough attention though. Quality of life is just as important as life itself. The impact on mental health is bad, and god knows what the withdrawal of social interactions is doing to teenagers at a time when they should be learning how to form connections. But as with the economic elements, it not an either or issue. We need them to broaden out their thinking and have a strategy that deals with containing the virus and supporting wellbeing/wellness. We won’t get it unfortunately, but that’s where we should be heading.

Poll: So then cake aficionados, which is your favourite part of Battenberg?

1
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:44 - Oct 14 with 1002 viewsJ2BLUE

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:20 - Oct 14 by SpruceMoose

Glad to get your backing here J2 as its something that I have definitely noticed too.

- People who usually reject government advice are now big fans of the portions of it that tell them it's OK to do what they want to do.

- People who usually reject all experts are now big proponents of select experts who back up their actions.

- People who usually treat mental health issues as something to be dealt with by just pulling yourself together are now up in arms about the nation's mental health.

Just some things I've noticed and feel particularly cynical about.
[Post edited 14 Oct 0:24]


Completely agree. The thing I keep seeing is that people felt fine after a couple of days so just decided not to bother self isolating. It's not like we don't know this virus has an average incubation period of six days...

I also have zero sympathy for people who booked a holiday with no restrictions and then had them imposed while they were away. It was always a possibility. You can't bet on red on the roulette wheel and then cry when it lands on black.

Poll: Would you vote Labour to avoid a Boris led government?

2
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:49 - Oct 14 with 992 viewsvapour_trail

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:44 - Oct 14 by J2BLUE

Completely agree. The thing I keep seeing is that people felt fine after a couple of days so just decided not to bother self isolating. It's not like we don't know this virus has an average incubation period of six days...

I also have zero sympathy for people who booked a holiday with no restrictions and then had them imposed while they were away. It was always a possibility. You can't bet on red on the roulette wheel and then cry when it lands on black.


I don’t know where you boys see all this stuff. There certainly seems to be a weight of evidence but I’ve not encountered any of it. I must be spending too much time at home.

Trailing vapour since 1999.
Poll: Should Gav and Phil limiti the number of polls?

0
the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:52 - Oct 14 with 992 viewsSpruceMoose

the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:49 - Oct 14 by vapour_trail

I don’t know where you boys see all this stuff. There certainly seems to be a weight of evidence but I’ve not encountered any of it. I must be spending too much time at home.


There's been examples of it on here but I guess it's easy to miss if you don't read the right post at the right time.

I'm not saying it's wide spread, but it's certainly something I've noticed, and seemingly so has J2.

Poll: Selectamod

0

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2020