6AAGuy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:03 pm
east hockey wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:34 pm
About aier.org:
"AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony
Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific"
You'll forgive me if I characterize your source as B.S.
Lee
Over 50,000 medical doctors and practitioners who signed the Great Barrington decree would disagree with you (and Fauci—whom you may recall also called masks unnecessary then recanted). Not everything your great doctor professes is gospel.
Anyway, this isn’t about Great Barrington, it’s about asymptomatic spread, which seems to have a lot of data suggesting it’s not happening, including the biggest study yet—making the science there unsettled at best.
Hard to base a lockdown on that notion is my point.
First, thanks to Lee for responding first. Was just coming to post something similar in response to 6AA's post. Also. it hasn't been signed by "over 50,000 doctors". This is from the first Google search I did, albeit from mid October when it was first released by Newsweek...
The Great Barrington Declaration, which is named after the town in Massachusetts that it was signed in, currently has signatures from 10,233 medical and public health scientists, 27,860 medical practitioners.
So, only 10,233 actual "doctors" supposedly signed it. I put doctors in quotes and used supposedly based on this piece from PlolitiFact...
"Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists"...
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
A trio of scientists drafted the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which says that people without underlying medical conditions should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal, while the vulnerable should remain protected.
The document was swiftly denounced by top health officials and thousands of researchers and scientists around the world, who called the approach unethical and nearly impossible.
See the sources for this fact-check (this was a link to the sources, doesn't working after I transferred it)
"BREAKING NEWS," one post on Facebook reads. "The world renowned experts in their fields, after a 4 day conference regarding COVID-19, declare that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO LIVING NORMALLY, PRACTICING SIMPLE HYGIENE & STAYING HOME WHEN SICK (NO FACE MASKS OR SOCIAL DISTANCING) and only protect the most vulnerable populations with more protective measures!"
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
Huh, the post was flagged by Facebook. Isn't that interesting? It goes on to say...
The social media post doesn’t provide the full picture. It’s accurate that three scientists authored a letter that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world.
"The document was drawn up following a meeting hosted by the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research. Named the "Great Barrington Declaration" after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Dr. Johnny Bananas." The signatures were later made private."
"The plan was put together by three scientists from prestigious universities: Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. But none in the group have published any peer-reviewed studies about the coronavirus, and some have advocated for herd immunity over lockdowns for months, telling policymakers that the virus isn’t that deadly."
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the declaration "ridiculous" and "total nonsense" in an interview with ABC News: "If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious disease they will tell you that that is risky, and you will wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think we just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense."
"Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference on Oct. 12.
Matt Hancock, the UK’s health secretary, attacked the document in Parliament on Oct. 13, saying that many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, and called it a flawed goal without a vaccine. Hancock also took issue with the paper’s idea of separating the elderly and vulnerable. "That is simply not possible," Hancok said. "As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable — not when so many people live in intergenerational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long COVID. ...If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate."
Thousands of other experts have also spoken out against the declaration. A counter-memo, first published in the Lancet medical journal and signed by a group of 80 researchers, called the idea "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." More than 6,400 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have since signed the memo.
So, let's put this one to bed for the final time and let's stop using "studies" by pseudo-scientists and "medical practitioners" who have little to no actual expertise in the area they are commenting on. Does this make whatever study 6AA referenced regarding asymptomatic spreaders backed by The Barrington Declaration
Next, from the actual conclusion of the linked study on asymptomatic spread...
Conclusions:
"The findings of this study suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even where community transmission is reduced. Prevention strategies, such as increased mask-wearing at home, improved ventilation, voluntary isolation at external facilities, and targeted antiviral prophylaxis, should be further explored."
If you do even a cursory review of the study, it's obvious that there are so many variables they have trouble accounting for that even it's authors acknowledge that, although the low asymptomatic spread rate established is of interest, even they aren't sold on the outcomes. I've got a great idea. Let's stop getting our "news" off of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Or, if we insist on doing so, let's at least spend 10 minutes researching what you find with simple Google searches to get a least a cursory idea as to whether or not said "article" or "study" has at least some merit.
Finally, let's hope the new strain in Britain that is 70% more transmissible and, has forced both Britain to do a hard lockdown of London and the rest of southeast England, along with the other European countries across the channel to temporarily enact travel bans on anyone coming in from England, doesn't cause issues here. Considering the incredibly rapid rise in cases in California, I won't be surprised if this new strain is found to be a part of why that's occurring. Especially since the strain was first identified in September.