Folks we were all bamboozled by government again.

Michael Ellenbogen

https://gbdeclaration.org/

King Boo

Great link ME.  The Great Barrington Declaration 'got' some of the nuances spot on. 

A very worthwhile read for the many who have never heard of it.  Principal authors are:

Dr. Martin Kulldorf from Harvard , (professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.)  ( and Dr. Jay Battacharya of Stanford (professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations)

Dr. Sunetra Gupta Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

mommyandme (m&m)

It was authored in October 2020.  Why didn’t we listen and let our kids have a normal life. 

JJ401

Bamboozled? I don’t think so. I listened to  one of the authors this morning. To me, he came across more as a proponent of a particular politician than a public health expert. (This was released near the end of the campaign cycle.) The details of how they planned to protect the vulnerable were not given.

Check out Crushed’s response on the spouse board.  https://www.alzconnected.org/discussion.aspx?g=posts&t=2147560535

King Boo

It is important to consider all parameters to fully understand data. Never easy.

Regarding the post you referenced:

The referenced graph that lists mortality based upon political party needs to be delved into a little deeper.   Older voters tended to vote for Trump in the last election; younger for Biden.  Hence, it's really age that is reflected in mortality on the graphs rather than solely political party affiliation.

The second co author from Oxford University, Dr. Guptra, is liberal.  

The Great Barrington Declaration advocated for protection of those most at risk for COVID. For vaccination of those individuals.  And, they note: "By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. protection of those most at risk, and to let life continue as it should for those who were not."  

Straying from the purpose of the discussion boards, mostly posted to thank Michael for the share.  Many people are not aware of the document. 

Our loved ones we all seek help for on the discussion boards are the vulnerable, the at risk.  No doubt about it.

King Boo

mommyandme-

Yes.  But there was a lot of alarming censorship during the pandemic. 

And a large co pandemic in mental health.   

My heart bleeds for what happened to our young people.

(=Meow=)

Humanity is it's own worst enemy.  Been to a hospital lately? I've been going back and forth all week.  It's not just about the sick and injured, it's about the staff that keep them running.  Those people are burnt out from all the COVID precautions and lockdowns, and scheduling any procedure involves long wait times.  The health of the healthcare system determines how long the *rest* of us live.

For what? So that a bunch of utterly mediocre freeDUMB loving nobodies can go about their very pathetic existences? Seriously?  It's one thing to be deprived of your life by a power hungry evil overlord or centibillionares, it's quite another to *allow* ourselves to be taken out by a bunch of dumb HICKS.

Newsflash, freeDUMB loving nobodies are NOT going to be developing cures and treatments for diseases, they will NOT be creating the next big thing, hell most are not even relevant in the 21 century, they are working drone jobs to support their equally unexceptional  families - We don't need you, and your very bad actions are screwing up the world we all live in.

Heard immunity will happen....around 2030 at this rate.  Most of us caring for dementia patients are middle age, if not seniors, unlike the kids and 20somethings, we know how long a decade is as we have lived though/experienced several - Losing a decade so that mediocre nobodies can enjoy their lives(unless they get sick) is weak, morally bankrupt, and worst of all stupid.

Marta

Meow:  just to clarify-to whom are you referring?

MN Chickadee

This is pseudoscience funded by a libertarian think tank and co-opted by people like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. The WHO and many academic and public health entities have warned this letter and its ideas are dangerous. It has been described by a majority of scientists as fringe, dangerous, lacking science, and not strategy but a political statement. It is thought that its herd immunity concept would have led to recurrent epidemics, not the end of covid. In practice it allows for preventable deaths. This "declaration" was crafted in October 2020, before anyone had the opportunity to be vaccinated. Teachers sent to classrooms were at the mercy of the virus, thousands died. The first lockdown was so we could figure out what the hell was going on. We didn't even know how we were getting covid, remember people washing their groceries? Subsequent closures were because there was so much covid. One can argue the lack of merit in closing schools and other lockdown measures, but I have a feeling those who would are also the ones who wouldn't wear a mask and fought all mitigation strategies as a "liberal agenda." Once we understood the virus, when this letter was crafted, if we had funded new ventilation systems in all schools, mandated masks, added more bussing and gotten creative we probably would not have had to close schools or had outbreaks in schools. But that wasn't done. There were things that could have been done for every sector to lessen the burden but it wasn't done. We were too busy denying the existence of a deadly disease for political purposes until it was too late. So yes, people suffered. Kids suffered. This declaration cannot be argued in a vacuum; if people had been reasonable in the first place about mitigation we may not have come to extended lockdowns. I have lost a LO to a covid outbreak in a long term care facility. I am in no mood for this trash science that would have killed even more people like my mother.

King Boo

I would encourage anyone with interest to read the GB declaration in it's entirety and understand the full context.   Most of what you hear was very unfair coverage, such as taking a partial sentence snippet out of context and making that a talking point.  To view this as a politically related statement is exactly how the media spinned it.  This results in an immediate dismissive stance.  No matter what one's own conclusion is, make it via critical thinking and coming to your own conclusion after an evaluative process.  

 The Great Barrington Declaration is not a fringe document.  It had 3 principal Authors, from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford; it had 43 other MD PhD orignal signatories; epidemiologists, microbiologists and immunologists; oncologists, epidemiologists, Professors of Public Health; Biomedical Data Scientists; Oncologists; Psychologists; Biophysists, Disease Modelers; Critical Care Physicians, Public Policy Health Physician; Biostatisticians and a myriad of other specialties.

In addition to this, over 60,000 Medical Physicians, Researchers and professionals have signed this.

Co-signatory biographies and affiliations are clearly noted on the declaration. 

As to 'funded' - there was no honoraria provided.  The host facility provided parking, the videotaping equipment, a cameraman and the site.    The colleagues were invited to record a talk about alternative strategies and they decided while do so to write a short summary.

It bears a much closer read.   Even if your ultimate conclusion after critical thinking is disagreement.  

MN Chickadee

 I did read it. I don't really care that a couple Ivy League yahoos wrote it and found tens of thousands other yahoos to adopt it. It is still NOT considered normal or acceptable by reputable scientists, agencies, or the World Health Organization. It is fringe.  Take their main premise - “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.” This idea of people just going to their super spreader events, packing bars and restaurants, and living normally in the middle of high community transmissions so they all get sick at once was untenable. It’s how hospitals get full. Even IF it were possible for these people to not inadvertently give it to their higher risk parents, grandparents, frail friends and neighbors, the grocery store clerk etc, statistically it would be a disaster. That many people, even healthy ones, getting covid at once means enough will get gravely ill and the hospitals and society would collapse. The protocols this document opposed were in place to buy time for hospitals to build capacity and to get closer to a vaccine especially for our struggling health care workers and seniors. It is mathematically impossible this approach would not have led to hundreds of thousands more deaths. And more mutations of the virus, some of which can and will be more deadly and/or more contagious. More pandemic.  The more we allow the virus to mutate the deeper our hole gets.  The more people who get infected the more mutations. The approach would not achieve any better outcome and is unethical killing scores of vulnerable people as collateral damage. And the argument is a straw man. No officials or epidemiologist is suggesting lockdowns were the only way to deal with the pandemic. Masks, testing and tracing, funding various improvements and stimulus for certain industries were a cornerstone of fighting it but aren’t mentioned at all in this document. Why? Nor does it acknowledge that poverty makes people more likely to get covid and suffer bad outcomes from it. People in poverty are disproportionately represented as essential workers that make them more vulnerable to community transmission. This document completely ignores them. It also doesn’t mention long covid, which anyone can get and suffer effects for years. And the more people who get infected, the more long haulers there will be.

“Nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity”  –  and how are these staff going to acquire immunity without first infecting their patients along the way? I would certainly not want my LO in a facility where they are encouraging their staff to essentially go out and get covid and get that natural immunity.  It is undeniable that a person can be very contagious before they show any symptoms or know they are infected. 

The document was funded and supported by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank known for its opposition to climate change. I see a pattern in their denial of scientific premises.

Why are you posting this discussion now? It’s 2 years old. Its arguments are related to a lack of vaccine which is not relevant now. 

King Boo

The GB Declaration is still extremely relevant.  The collateral damage of potential or current aspects of public health policy still exists.  

The quote in the above post, however is the one that was frequently quoted in the media out of context to disparage this work, so I am posting the preceeding paragraphs which are vital to the meaning.  

 Here is the complete excerpt: 

" The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.  

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. "

As Michael Ellenbogen previously shared, for the complete document, visit Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org)

MN Chickadee

You keep saying how relevant and important this two years old document is, but it doesn’t actually give any answers nor do you. How does it protect people with dementia? You just throw a dog whistle out like this and expect to not actually defend the content?

King Boo

I was not the original poster.  ME was. 

 My posts were to encourage people to read it.

The Great Barrington Declaration was not designed to be a policies and procedure manual.  It was written by experts to alert people to the great damage being done to health and society by damaging public health measures.  

The need for focused protection of our elderly vulnerable was recognized, as there is over a 1,000 times risk to an elderly person (like our LO WD) compared to a younger person.   

Due to lockdowns and fright,  cancer screenings were not performed.    Mental health issues developed or were increased.  There was youth suicide ideation.  Child abuse was up 35 percent.   Psychiatric beds are full.    Significant economic damage.  The ruin of over 1/3  of small businesses.  325,000 people skipped chemotherapy during the first month of lockdowns.  It is estimated that 40 percent of stroke patients and half of heart attack patients were so afraid during lockdown they did not call an ambulance. 

Hard lockdowns have been tried.  Places that had hard lockdowns have not eradicated COVID.  People are locked in their homes in Shanghai and can’t get food.  They have plenty of COVID.   Compare that to Sweden.  They had no lockdowns, kept schools open for kids 15 and under, no mask mandates – and their all cause mortality rate was low, compared to other countries that did lockdowns.  Since you have mentioned political orientation, I will mention Sweden is a socialist democracy, a left leaning country.  They took an evidenced based approach.  It was not perfect.  But less societal damage was done. 

With regard to your question as to why staff who had COVID would be desired as caregivers to our elderly vulnerable,  such  a person  would have the most durable immunity, lasting  much longer than the immunity imparted by a vaccine.   

MN Chickadee

I know ME posted it. Many of us would have kept scrolling but King Boo came along and wanted to lend the idea legitimacy.

I didn't ask why, I asked how. How are these nursing home staff going to acquire immunity without infecting their patients? How does that actually work? For real, how does it work?

The US is not Sweden. We don't have a national health system. We don't fund anything like Sweden does. It's apples to oranges. Also, have you actually looked at Sweden's outcome? Nothing to hold up as a success. Their death rate was awful compared to their Nordic counterparts who imposed mitigation measures. Like masks, which again are not mentioned in this document. Or by you. 

I don't disagree there was suffering and harm from the pandemic and lock down measures. No one is saying it's been a cake walk. No one wanted this. The idea that this document's ideas would alleviate that suffering is laughable. You say it wasn't meant to be a policy or procedure guide. So what is it? A political statement? An attack on government's policy? Stop the double speak. Stop the attack on public health and its dedicated public servants. You don't actually have any answers, just criticism and distraction and a lack of anything of substance. 

King Boo

Suggesting someone read a document and then explaining (at your request) why I suggest this is not an attack. 

  I am perceiving an attack from you however.  You accuse me of dog whistling (I again point out that the authors and co-signers come from all political orientations) and you called the cited authors yahoos.  

There is no obligation to agree, and certainly your accusations towards me are unjust.     

I would not have written the last post, but you challenged me to respond with an explanation, so I did.  I did not make it a research project to cover every point.   I am familiar with masks, I am a weary healthcare worker too. 

I don't  lend the GBD legitimacy - history and the signatures of the over 60,000  MD/ PhD and medical professionals and 865,000 citizens will need to do that.    I merely suggested it was worth a read.  

 Your opinions are certainly yours to have and I am sorry you are upset and angry. 

 I wish you peace and good night.    

Michael Ellenbogen

I did not add this so others have to fight with each other. I did it based on the date and what was said. I just wanted you to see another side that most media outlets refused to cover. Its up to you were you agree or disagree but you should at least know what may missed like I did.

MN Chickadee

King Boo wrote:

Suggesting someone read a document and then explaining (at your request) why I suggest this is not an attack. 

  I am perceiving an attack from you however.  You accuse me of dog whistling (I again point out that the authors and co-signers come from all political orientations) and you called the cited authors yahoos.  

There is no obligation to agree, and certainly your accusations towards me are unjust.     

I would not have written the last post, but you challenged me to respond with an explanation, so I did.  I did not make it a research project to cover every point.   I am familiar with masks, I am a weary healthcare worker too. 

I don't  lend the GBD legitimacy - history and the signatures of the over 60,000  MD/ PhD and medical professionals and 865,000 citizens will need to do that.    I merely suggested it was worth a read.  

 Your opinions are certainly yours to have and I am sorry you are upset and angry. 

 I wish you peace and good night.    

I am not upset and angry. I am pointing out the numerous ways in which this document spreads misinformation and dangerous ideas. I am asking for someone to explain how it helps people with dementia, which is the only reason it should even be on here in the first place. 

Jo C.

Off topic, not supportive, and has become contentious.

How about this gets put to bed; there is nothing left to be said and differing opinions will persist.

Let's get back to the support of one another that this Message Board was intended for.

J.

Michael Ellenbogen

I thought  it had to do with those living with dementia  who suffered so much because of COVID. Am I wrong on that?

King Boo

You are correct, Michael.   

DawnOfANewDay

This should just be removed.  It has no place here as it just causes divisiveness.  

I come here for support.  

I have to wonder why it was even posted.  

Michael Ellenbogen

It was almost off the page but your comment brought it back from going away.

DawnOfANewDay

You're allowed to post a two year old article, but my time limit is four days.  

I think I am done here. 

Michael Ellenbogen

A two year old article that many of us just learned about because it was kept from us. There are so many article posted here that are 3 and 4 years old including many that are much older. Not every one has even them. If its not for you then do not reply or read it.

Jo C.

The Post this is referring to was either deleted by the Post's writer, or taken down by the Thread author . . . in either case, that deleted Post is what drove the Thread to the top again, but snce it is gone, as long as we do not keep Posting, the Thread can once again drift to the bottom of the page.

We are all here to support one another and we will continue to do so.

J.

BethMimi

Amen.  This is not the forum for this.