This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Absurd and evidence of bias for the section on authors/signatories of the declaration, to include descriptions of fake signatures by fictitious people who "support" the declaration, which no doubt came from a petition circulating on social media, which anyone can sign with a fake name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That question could be the foundation for a new section. I've just read a Guardian article indication that the answer for the UK is "no": [1]. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Great Barrington Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AIER is not "part" of Koch-funded networks, it has occasionally partnered with Koch-funded groups on research. As written, the entry implies that Koch controls AIER. 166.182.252.137 ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is advocating rather than presenting a neutral point of view. The main point of the Great Barrington Declaration is that the lockdown's secondary effects on public health are worse than the lockdowns. This argument is not even made in the initial heading. An article about "What is the Great Barrington Declaration?" should include what it is.
The argument from the Great Barrington Declaration should be made in the initial heading, preferably with quotes to ensure neutrality.
Some of the sentences in the inital heading are not accurate.
For instance, "by working away from home and attending mass gatherings" is found nowhere in the declaration. It's an editorial that inaccurately states their position. The authors advocated returning life to normal, not intentionally attending mass gatherings.
Additionally, "They hope that as a result most of these lower-risk people will contract the infection but not die" The doctor's are presenting a policy plan, they aren't "hoping". The evidence shows younger people are far less likely to have complications or die. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the schools open and Dr. Fauci has testified to the Senate that children are low risk for complication. Children's lower risk has been echoed by the Mayo Clinic. The doctors understand probabilities and know that some will die. However, they also realize people die from the secondary effects from the lockdown (opiates, mental health, missing preventive cancer screenings, etc.). The whole point of the declaration is more damage is done from the lockdowns. This should be rephrased to be more medical and not suggesting that doctors are "hoping magically" people won't die of Covid-19. That's inaccurate and silly.
Lastly, the platform is not libertarian. That should be removed. Although it's fair to discuss the authoring organizations political leanings, the actual platform does not call for government non-intervention. The platform encourages active government intervention to protect vulnerable and seniors who would be high-risk. That's why it's called focused protection. Discussion about libertarianism should be placed in a critique section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.240.188 ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For possible connections, see 07/17/20 article by AIER's Jeffrey Tucker, Who Should Be on Trump’s New C-19 Advisory Commission? The ideas there are consistent with GBD. Did AIER recruit? Di Kulldorf recruit?
David L. Katz - Preventive Medicine
John Ioannidis - (at Stanford, was coauthor with Bhattacharya of the early Santa Clara study that was heavily criticized.)
Knut Wittkowski - Epidemiologist, was biostatistician at Rockefeller University, but they wrote The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski, disavowing his opinions and noting he never was a Professor there.
Michael Levitt - Nobel chemist
Jennifer Nuzzo - senior scholar, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins.
Johan Giesecke - was lead epidemiolgist in Sweeden for 10 years after 1995, "remains a consultant in a country that has managed to crush the virus with no social disruption and low levels of death."
Sunetra Gupta - Oxford epidemiolgist, of ocurse 1 of the GBD authors.
David Henderson - Economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
Then we find: Martin Kulldorff is not only a Professor of Medicine at Harvard, but is an AIER contributor, writing 08/31/20 article Delaying Herd Immunity Is Costing Lives JohnMashey ( talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article from AIER by Donald J. Boudreaux. Just a little context, not saying we should use it as a source. " Tyler Cowen and the Mercatus Center this past Spring awarded funds to Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson. The reason for this grant of funds was Tyler’s admiration of the fact that Dr. Ferguson’s model served as the spark for massive lockdowns in the U.K. and the U.S. But here’s the thing: Until last year, Charles Koch served on the board of Mercatus and has been, and continues to be, a contributor. Clearly, if the Koch Foundation is buying opposition to covid lockdowns, it’s doing a poor job!" Pelirojopajaro ( talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain why I am prohibited from adding to this topic? I am a qualified editor, with relevant education and experience to the topic, and a clinical assistant professor at University of Kansas school of medicine. I am also one of the signatories to the Declaration. This topic is in the news and much new information has been added in the past twenty-four hours, including the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns. Please Wikipedia, don't follow Google, Youtube and the rest of Big Tech down the censorship hole. Doctorglenntaylor@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1111z ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdownsis complete nonsense. There has been no "180" and reports to the contrary are at best tabloid or misinformation, verging on outright disinformation. (What the Anglo-Saxons called "lying".) There has been no influence whatsoever on the WHO by the AIER, neither should there be. Notions of
censorshipand
Big Techare just the usual campaign babble emanating from the fringes. As for volunteer anaesthesiologists, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore … GPinkerton ( talk) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed this:
Google reportedly censored the declaration, removing it from the search results presented to users in most English-speaking countries, and instead directing them to articles critical of the declaration. [1]
The reason is that (a) it's not true, at least for me, (b) this is not a very good source, and (c) the other sources I've seen are even worse. Google Search is famous for not messing with rankings, so claims that they're deliberately suppressing a new site are extraordinary claims, and they therefore require evidence in excess of just a political reporter hearing a Redditor's speculation. It's perfectly normal for a brand-new site to take a few days to get indexed and rise through the results.
I am specifically removing this claim because it is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. "Hey, some people thought it one web search engine was slow about indexing the website promoting this, and they ascribed nefarious reasons for the delay" is not something you'd expect to see if you were reading this 10 or 20 years later, so it doesn't belong in the article.
If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced it, but with an alternative source. It's an important aspect of the subject and needs mentioning. Arcturus ( talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Google say no censorship and that it's just because the site was new: "It can take a little time for our automated systems to learn enough about new pages like this for them to rank better for relevant terms. This delay can vary by country. This page is and was ranking in the first page in the US, has risen elsewhere & likely will continue automatically." They point out that the same thing happened with Joe Biden's campaign website. -- Andreas JN 466 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Should a page be started for the JSM, should we wait until more RSs become available, or is it enough simply to refer to it on this (GBD) page? Kitb ( talk) 14:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following section:
{... Critics of the declaration's recommendations, including academics and the World Health Organization, have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and unethical, that it would be impossible to shield those who are medically vulnerable, that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood, and that the herd immunity component of the strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[5][8] ...}
Is entirely wrong factually and instead is incredibly biased political slander.
First of all, the proposed strategy of herd immunity is what has ended each and every entrenched epidemic in all of history. Even the last polio epicemic of 1948 was essentially over before the Salk vaccine was available in 1957. So it is not at all unethical or dangerous, and in fact herd immunity saves lives by allowus us to substitute those who will survive over those who are vulnerable and would otherwise die.
Of coruse it would be much easier to shield those who are medically vulnerable because if you stop tring to isolate everyone, you can focus just on isolating the vulnerable. In fact, you can deliberately infect the young and healthy, so you don't have to contact trace because you already know who and when they are infected, and can easily quarantine them.
The long term effects of covid-19 are fully understood, as 90% of the cases have now been proven to be so mild they are asymptomatic entirely. And anyone claiming immunity does not last, is just lying, since hundreds of experiments on vaccines proves that immunity is persistant. Only someone with political motivation would suggest that immunity means you can't get re-infected. Of course all viruses can re-infect. Immunity just means re-infection is asumptomatic, not that you can't get re-infected.
And the claims that the WHO or other organizations disagree with the Declaration, is a lie.
The WHO recently came out with the opposite, endorsing herd immunity and deprecating locks downs as harmful. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
This criticism section should be removed or couched as possibly biased and unsubstantiated.
There is nothing wrong with saying there is disagreement with the Declaration, but the criticism should not contain factual mistakes or down right lies.
Herd Immunity ( talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you still misunderstand the Declaration and herd immunity both. The whole point is that herd immunity always ends ever epidemic once entrenched. There has never been one entrenched epidemic that was not ended by herd immunity. Some have been avoid by something else, but not ended. For example, we avoided Ebola through quarantine and contact tracing. We avoid future polio or smallpox epidemics by vaccinations, but since vaccines usually take about 5 years, not once has a vaccine ended an epidemic in progress. But yes, the implication when someone says "herd immunity", is that they also intend a scheme as to some sort of deliberate means of spreading the infection faster. Which is the reason herd immunity is so wonderful. Instead of the elderly randomly getting infected and dying, we can deliberately protect them by ending an epidemic quickly with healthy volunteers. In the case of covid-19, those volunteers should be under 38, to make their risk negligible. And that is why I disagree with your take on the Declarations stand on point 1. If one is deliberately infecting those at low risk, it is to end the risk to everyone else. So the point is the same at number 1, of getting transmission under control. You control who gets infected, the ones who will survive instead of the ones who will die. Point 2 is redundant if you deliberately infect because then you already quarantine them and you don't need testing or tracing. And the whole point is to then focus on the vulnerable. So the Declaration does talk about preventive measures of point 4, but they are not needed except for around the vulnerable only. Point 5 is moot now, since the US already has 8 million cases, to any travel restrictions are pointless.
The mistake Fauci made was understandable. Since only the very sick were being tested, the death rate looked high. But now that wider testing has shown that 90% of the infected were asymptomatic, we now know lethality for covid-19 is slightly lower than that of flu, and that the majority of the population already is immune. So then we are already VERY close to herd immunity, and the death toll from herd immunity with those under 38, would be far less than our monthly death toll now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.122.167 ( talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking for better sources, and I think I've got a few here that are better than some of what's currently cited:
Please let me know what you think of these. I mostly think that these will replace and refine existing sources, instead of expanding the article even further. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"Libertarian" refers to a political ideology. It is mistaken to apply it to a medical proposal or protocol. It may be the case that it has some support among libertarians, but this does not mean you can term it a libertarian proposal--no more than you can deem a lockdown policy left-wing, or right-wing, on the grounds that in some places such a policy enjoys support among those sections of the political spectrum. I get the sense that the phrasing has the effect of delegitimising the proposal, by making it out to be essentially political. The sentence which states the proposal "makes no mention of masks, physical distancing" (and so on) comes across as critical, further making the proposal's authors' out to be somehow radical or political. I would argue that the seventh paragraph in the declaration implies that masks, among other things, may be a part of a wider response. Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase at the end of the opening "[...] libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" obviously implies there is some vague continuity between climate change denialism and opposition to lockdown policies. I say this because you could equally substitute "climate change denial" with "support for evolution", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", "low taxation", etc. The Koch brothers have their tendrils in all of those efforts too. So, specifically mentioning climate change denial is trying to slander by association the authors of the declaration, because this article uses a very malign example of Koch influence for no clear reason over a less odious example. Should also be mentioned that "Long COVID" is still a hypothesised syndrome without a clear etiology or way to diagnose, and it not recognised by major medical authorities, at least yet. It is good that it is set in quotation marks for this reason. The article may however benefit from simply using the phrase "possible long-term effects". Respectfully, it seems some people have gotten the idea that the GB Declaration is political in nature and are taking a political approach. But this is misleadign to readers. It should also be pointed out the policy advocates Focused Protection, not herd immunity— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
a medical proposal or protocol. That's not correct. The Declaration is a 500-word political statement, not any kind of scientific endeavour. It's quite true that "climate change denial", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", and "low taxation" are all conservative talking points that Koch's money finds it way into. I don't see that being the case for "support for evolution", unless you're speaking about the kind of discount eugenics advocated by the Declarations more right-wing evangelists. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Greenhalgh et al (2020) might be a useful addition to this article. [1] RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Other support", Dr David Nabarro's comments should be added, since they are notable, relevant, and sourced.
David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19, said "really important point by Professor Gupta, I want to say it again, we in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdown as a primary means of control." and "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer" in response to a question regarding Professor Gupta's views on lockdown's impact on wider health outcomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE&feature=youtu.be&t=24m37s https://spectator.com.au/2020/10/will-the-last-dan-standing-turn-out-the-lights/ https://spectator.us/lockdown-incredible-vanishing-world-health-organization/
This is notable and relevant because David Nabarro's role at WHO is "Disseminate WHO guidance on COVID-19 readiness and response" and "Provide strategic advice on preparedness, readiness and response to COVID-19 outbreaks;". https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/who-director-general-s-special-envoys-on-covid-19-preparedness-and-response
I have created a new section (as oppposed to "Response section missing WHO has just come out strongly AGAINST lockdowns") because I believe it is fairer and more accurate to state it is Dr David Nabarro's position. HoldPowerToAccount ( talk) 11:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest that further expansion of this article via addition of paragraphs e.g. in the "responses" sections is not desirable. I'm not complaining about any particular addition -- what I'm getting at is that the increase in length in this mode is not valuable to the reader. It's what I tell my students: it's very inefficient to write a literature review where the mode is "one paragraph per study". Much better to write in a mode organised by topic/theme/finding, and then cite multiple sources for the various people who are making the same basic points. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Absurd and evidence of bias for the section on authors/signatories of the declaration, to include descriptions of fake signatures by fictitious people who "support" the declaration, which no doubt came from a petition circulating on social media, which anyone can sign with a fake name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That question could be the foundation for a new section. I've just read a Guardian article indication that the answer for the UK is "no": [1]. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Great Barrington Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AIER is not "part" of Koch-funded networks, it has occasionally partnered with Koch-funded groups on research. As written, the entry implies that Koch controls AIER. 166.182.252.137 ( talk) 02:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is advocating rather than presenting a neutral point of view. The main point of the Great Barrington Declaration is that the lockdown's secondary effects on public health are worse than the lockdowns. This argument is not even made in the initial heading. An article about "What is the Great Barrington Declaration?" should include what it is.
The argument from the Great Barrington Declaration should be made in the initial heading, preferably with quotes to ensure neutrality.
Some of the sentences in the inital heading are not accurate.
For instance, "by working away from home and attending mass gatherings" is found nowhere in the declaration. It's an editorial that inaccurately states their position. The authors advocated returning life to normal, not intentionally attending mass gatherings.
Additionally, "They hope that as a result most of these lower-risk people will contract the infection but not die" The doctor's are presenting a policy plan, they aren't "hoping". The evidence shows younger people are far less likely to have complications or die. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the schools open and Dr. Fauci has testified to the Senate that children are low risk for complication. Children's lower risk has been echoed by the Mayo Clinic. The doctors understand probabilities and know that some will die. However, they also realize people die from the secondary effects from the lockdown (opiates, mental health, missing preventive cancer screenings, etc.). The whole point of the declaration is more damage is done from the lockdowns. This should be rephrased to be more medical and not suggesting that doctors are "hoping magically" people won't die of Covid-19. That's inaccurate and silly.
Lastly, the platform is not libertarian. That should be removed. Although it's fair to discuss the authoring organizations political leanings, the actual platform does not call for government non-intervention. The platform encourages active government intervention to protect vulnerable and seniors who would be high-risk. That's why it's called focused protection. Discussion about libertarianism should be placed in a critique section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.240.188 ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For possible connections, see 07/17/20 article by AIER's Jeffrey Tucker, Who Should Be on Trump’s New C-19 Advisory Commission? The ideas there are consistent with GBD. Did AIER recruit? Di Kulldorf recruit?
David L. Katz - Preventive Medicine
John Ioannidis - (at Stanford, was coauthor with Bhattacharya of the early Santa Clara study that was heavily criticized.)
Knut Wittkowski - Epidemiologist, was biostatistician at Rockefeller University, but they wrote The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski, disavowing his opinions and noting he never was a Professor there.
Michael Levitt - Nobel chemist
Jennifer Nuzzo - senior scholar, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins.
Johan Giesecke - was lead epidemiolgist in Sweeden for 10 years after 1995, "remains a consultant in a country that has managed to crush the virus with no social disruption and low levels of death."
Sunetra Gupta - Oxford epidemiolgist, of ocurse 1 of the GBD authors.
David Henderson - Economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
Then we find: Martin Kulldorff is not only a Professor of Medicine at Harvard, but is an AIER contributor, writing 08/31/20 article Delaying Herd Immunity Is Costing Lives JohnMashey ( talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article from AIER by Donald J. Boudreaux. Just a little context, not saying we should use it as a source. " Tyler Cowen and the Mercatus Center this past Spring awarded funds to Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson. The reason for this grant of funds was Tyler’s admiration of the fact that Dr. Ferguson’s model served as the spark for massive lockdowns in the U.K. and the U.S. But here’s the thing: Until last year, Charles Koch served on the board of Mercatus and has been, and continues to be, a contributor. Clearly, if the Koch Foundation is buying opposition to covid lockdowns, it’s doing a poor job!" Pelirojopajaro ( talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain why I am prohibited from adding to this topic? I am a qualified editor, with relevant education and experience to the topic, and a clinical assistant professor at University of Kansas school of medicine. I am also one of the signatories to the Declaration. This topic is in the news and much new information has been added in the past twenty-four hours, including the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns. Please Wikipedia, don't follow Google, Youtube and the rest of Big Tech down the censorship hole. Doctorglenntaylor@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1111z ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdownsis complete nonsense. There has been no "180" and reports to the contrary are at best tabloid or misinformation, verging on outright disinformation. (What the Anglo-Saxons called "lying".) There has been no influence whatsoever on the WHO by the AIER, neither should there be. Notions of
censorshipand
Big Techare just the usual campaign babble emanating from the fringes. As for volunteer anaesthesiologists, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore … GPinkerton ( talk) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed this:
Google reportedly censored the declaration, removing it from the search results presented to users in most English-speaking countries, and instead directing them to articles critical of the declaration. [1]
The reason is that (a) it's not true, at least for me, (b) this is not a very good source, and (c) the other sources I've seen are even worse. Google Search is famous for not messing with rankings, so claims that they're deliberately suppressing a new site are extraordinary claims, and they therefore require evidence in excess of just a political reporter hearing a Redditor's speculation. It's perfectly normal for a brand-new site to take a few days to get indexed and rise through the results.
I am specifically removing this claim because it is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. "Hey, some people thought it one web search engine was slow about indexing the website promoting this, and they ascribed nefarious reasons for the delay" is not something you'd expect to see if you were reading this 10 or 20 years later, so it doesn't belong in the article.
If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced it, but with an alternative source. It's an important aspect of the subject and needs mentioning. Arcturus ( talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Google say no censorship and that it's just because the site was new: "It can take a little time for our automated systems to learn enough about new pages like this for them to rank better for relevant terms. This delay can vary by country. This page is and was ranking in the first page in the US, has risen elsewhere & likely will continue automatically." They point out that the same thing happened with Joe Biden's campaign website. -- Andreas JN 466 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Should a page be started for the JSM, should we wait until more RSs become available, or is it enough simply to refer to it on this (GBD) page? Kitb ( talk) 14:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following section:
{... Critics of the declaration's recommendations, including academics and the World Health Organization, have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and unethical, that it would be impossible to shield those who are medically vulnerable, that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood, and that the herd immunity component of the strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[5][8] ...}
Is entirely wrong factually and instead is incredibly biased political slander.
First of all, the proposed strategy of herd immunity is what has ended each and every entrenched epidemic in all of history. Even the last polio epicemic of 1948 was essentially over before the Salk vaccine was available in 1957. So it is not at all unethical or dangerous, and in fact herd immunity saves lives by allowus us to substitute those who will survive over those who are vulnerable and would otherwise die.
Of coruse it would be much easier to shield those who are medically vulnerable because if you stop tring to isolate everyone, you can focus just on isolating the vulnerable. In fact, you can deliberately infect the young and healthy, so you don't have to contact trace because you already know who and when they are infected, and can easily quarantine them.
The long term effects of covid-19 are fully understood, as 90% of the cases have now been proven to be so mild they are asymptomatic entirely. And anyone claiming immunity does not last, is just lying, since hundreds of experiments on vaccines proves that immunity is persistant. Only someone with political motivation would suggest that immunity means you can't get re-infected. Of course all viruses can re-infect. Immunity just means re-infection is asumptomatic, not that you can't get re-infected.
And the claims that the WHO or other organizations disagree with the Declaration, is a lie.
The WHO recently came out with the opposite, endorsing herd immunity and deprecating locks downs as harmful. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
This criticism section should be removed or couched as possibly biased and unsubstantiated.
There is nothing wrong with saying there is disagreement with the Declaration, but the criticism should not contain factual mistakes or down right lies.
Herd Immunity ( talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you still misunderstand the Declaration and herd immunity both. The whole point is that herd immunity always ends ever epidemic once entrenched. There has never been one entrenched epidemic that was not ended by herd immunity. Some have been avoid by something else, but not ended. For example, we avoided Ebola through quarantine and contact tracing. We avoid future polio or smallpox epidemics by vaccinations, but since vaccines usually take about 5 years, not once has a vaccine ended an epidemic in progress. But yes, the implication when someone says "herd immunity", is that they also intend a scheme as to some sort of deliberate means of spreading the infection faster. Which is the reason herd immunity is so wonderful. Instead of the elderly randomly getting infected and dying, we can deliberately protect them by ending an epidemic quickly with healthy volunteers. In the case of covid-19, those volunteers should be under 38, to make their risk negligible. And that is why I disagree with your take on the Declarations stand on point 1. If one is deliberately infecting those at low risk, it is to end the risk to everyone else. So the point is the same at number 1, of getting transmission under control. You control who gets infected, the ones who will survive instead of the ones who will die. Point 2 is redundant if you deliberately infect because then you already quarantine them and you don't need testing or tracing. And the whole point is to then focus on the vulnerable. So the Declaration does talk about preventive measures of point 4, but they are not needed except for around the vulnerable only. Point 5 is moot now, since the US already has 8 million cases, to any travel restrictions are pointless.
The mistake Fauci made was understandable. Since only the very sick were being tested, the death rate looked high. But now that wider testing has shown that 90% of the infected were asymptomatic, we now know lethality for covid-19 is slightly lower than that of flu, and that the majority of the population already is immune. So then we are already VERY close to herd immunity, and the death toll from herd immunity with those under 38, would be far less than our monthly death toll now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.122.167 ( talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking for better sources, and I think I've got a few here that are better than some of what's currently cited:
Please let me know what you think of these. I mostly think that these will replace and refine existing sources, instead of expanding the article even further. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"Libertarian" refers to a political ideology. It is mistaken to apply it to a medical proposal or protocol. It may be the case that it has some support among libertarians, but this does not mean you can term it a libertarian proposal--no more than you can deem a lockdown policy left-wing, or right-wing, on the grounds that in some places such a policy enjoys support among those sections of the political spectrum. I get the sense that the phrasing has the effect of delegitimising the proposal, by making it out to be essentially political. The sentence which states the proposal "makes no mention of masks, physical distancing" (and so on) comes across as critical, further making the proposal's authors' out to be somehow radical or political. I would argue that the seventh paragraph in the declaration implies that masks, among other things, may be a part of a wider response. Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase at the end of the opening "[...] libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" obviously implies there is some vague continuity between climate change denialism and opposition to lockdown policies. I say this because you could equally substitute "climate change denial" with "support for evolution", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", "low taxation", etc. The Koch brothers have their tendrils in all of those efforts too. So, specifically mentioning climate change denial is trying to slander by association the authors of the declaration, because this article uses a very malign example of Koch influence for no clear reason over a less odious example. Should also be mentioned that "Long COVID" is still a hypothesised syndrome without a clear etiology or way to diagnose, and it not recognised by major medical authorities, at least yet. It is good that it is set in quotation marks for this reason. The article may however benefit from simply using the phrase "possible long-term effects". Respectfully, it seems some people have gotten the idea that the GB Declaration is political in nature and are taking a political approach. But this is misleadign to readers. It should also be pointed out the policy advocates Focused Protection, not herd immunity— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
a medical proposal or protocol. That's not correct. The Declaration is a 500-word political statement, not any kind of scientific endeavour. It's quite true that "climate change denial", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", and "low taxation" are all conservative talking points that Koch's money finds it way into. I don't see that being the case for "support for evolution", unless you're speaking about the kind of discount eugenics advocated by the Declarations more right-wing evangelists. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Greenhalgh et al (2020) might be a useful addition to this article. [1] RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Other support", Dr David Nabarro's comments should be added, since they are notable, relevant, and sourced.
David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19, said "really important point by Professor Gupta, I want to say it again, we in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdown as a primary means of control." and "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer" in response to a question regarding Professor Gupta's views on lockdown's impact on wider health outcomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE&feature=youtu.be&t=24m37s https://spectator.com.au/2020/10/will-the-last-dan-standing-turn-out-the-lights/ https://spectator.us/lockdown-incredible-vanishing-world-health-organization/
This is notable and relevant because David Nabarro's role at WHO is "Disseminate WHO guidance on COVID-19 readiness and response" and "Provide strategic advice on preparedness, readiness and response to COVID-19 outbreaks;". https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/who-director-general-s-special-envoys-on-covid-19-preparedness-and-response
I have created a new section (as oppposed to "Response section missing WHO has just come out strongly AGAINST lockdowns") because I believe it is fairer and more accurate to state it is Dr David Nabarro's position. HoldPowerToAccount ( talk) 11:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest that further expansion of this article via addition of paragraphs e.g. in the "responses" sections is not desirable. I'm not complaining about any particular addition -- what I'm getting at is that the increase in length in this mode is not valuable to the reader. It's what I tell my students: it's very inefficient to write a literature review where the mode is "one paragraph per study". Much better to write in a mode organised by topic/theme/finding, and then cite multiple sources for the various people who are making the same basic points. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)