Great Barrington Declaration, lets get back to Cruising!!

[nomad098]

1 hour ago, CT Sean said:

I am under no obligation to verify the signatories of the declaration - I'm not the one attempting to claim its legitimacy. The fact that it includes such notable experts as:

Mr Banana Rama

Dr Johnny Fartpants

Dr Person Fakename

Professor Notaf Uckingclue

Prof Cominic Dummings

Tells me all I need to know about the validity of any name on the list.

 

This has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've seen against the GBD

 

An open source document signed by a few pranksters and possibly by some to discredit the views of the genuine scientists is irrelevant.

 

Many scientists and individuals that have proposed something different to the accepted facts, been ridiculed by their peers and contemporaries, and then have gone on to prove themselves right,  though many more have failed.

 

The only way to be certain is to rigorously test their assertions and hold them up to scrutiny. 

 

To dismiss out of hand another scientist's conclusions without serious consideration is utter folly and arrogance. 

 

You insinuate the other signatories hold no validity, which is a damning indictment on the USA's universities Harvard and Stanford competencies, based upon a few pranksters.

 

Only time will tell if our governments have charted the correct course

Edited October 19, 2020 by nomad098

[Bloodgem]

4 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

This is just as disingenuous to the truth as you claim compman9 is being. The ONS processes raw data and is only as good as the data it receives. It is only when you drill down on this data and take other factors into account that the larger picture emerges.

 

1) These are deaths where covid-19 was indicated on a death certificate not the actual cause of death.

2) These figures do not take into account comorbidities

3) These figures do not take into account individuals who contracted covid-19 whilst in hospital for other life threatening reasons.

4) Even the experts accept that a small proportion of deaths are misdiagnosed as covid-19 related without a test. 

5) Daily deaths are added for any reason within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test

6) There is anecdotal evidence from doctors, nurses and other health professionals especially at the beginning of the epidemic of the misclassification of cause of death.

 

It will not be evident for a long while what the true impact of covid-19 will be and even longer for the impacts of the actions taken by government to control this virus will result in. 

You have a valid point but at least I'm willing to provide the website where these figures came from. So that they can be discussed by any poster who wants to, like yourself.  compman9 never provides any evidence for the claims he/she makes which makes it harder for posters to determine the actual truth. 

[broberts]

10 hours ago, compman9 said:

 

It is not my job or any government's job to continue to keep people safe from this virus via incredible limits on freedoms, when so much more is known.

...

 

The majority opinion of technical experts disagree with you and have presented detailed plans to mitigate the virus and move towards normalcy. The fact that you are not willing to detail your alternative suggests that it doesn't exist or is not feasible.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, TheMastodon said:

 

Plz enlighten us how many children w/ no pre existing conditions have died from Covid19

 

 

 

Not sure exactly what is being asked. See link for details on COVID-19 in children. Personally I believe one dead child is too many and worth serious treasure and mitigation efforts to avoid.

 

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/

[nomad098]

25 minutes ago, Bloodgem said:

You have a valid point but at least I'm willing to provide the website where these figures came from. So that they can be discussed by any poster who wants to, like yourself.  compman9 never provides any evidence for the claims he/she makes which makes it harder for posters to determine the actual truth. 

 

I agree that if you point to evidence it helps with the conversation. Part of the problem at the moment the evidence is inconclusive and until evidence emerges to prove GBD wrong opposing views hold equal merit.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

18 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I agree that if you point to evidence it helps with the conversation. Part of the problem at the moment the evidence is inconclusive and until evidence emerges to prove GBD wrong opposing views hold equal merit.

But shouldn't the onus be on GBD (or it's proponents) providing evidence that it's right?  Not that others need to prove it wrong?

[compman9]

7 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Thank you for confirming that your figure of 400 is fictional. 

If your figure was actually real you would have no problem posting a link to the website you got your figure from.  

 

I could quote you the figures that appears on the Office of National Statistics website but you will claim that the figures do not differentiate between those that are fit and health and those that are not. 

 

From other posters here the website I use to keep me informed about Covid figures in England:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#deaths.

 

For those that do not want to click the link according to the ONS; England and Wales have had 5681 Covid deaths for under 65's. This figure does not include Scotland or Northern Ireland. 

Which is slightly more that the 400 that compman9 likes to post

 

 

Oh dear, while trying to catch me out you have included incorrect figures

 

I said, quite clearly WITHOUT UNDERLYING HEALTH ISSUES

[compman9]

2 hours ago, CT Sean said:

That is not what confirmation bias means.

 

I am under no obligation to verify the signatories of the declaration - I'm not the one attempting to claim its legitimacy. The fact that it includes such notable experts as:

Mr Banana Rama

 

Dr Johnny Fartpants

 

Dr Person Fakename

 

Professor Notaf Uckingclue

 

Prof Cominic Dummings

 

Tells me all I need to know about the validity of any name on the list.

 

Your final question warrants no response. If you'd like to present data, feel free to do so. Otherwise it's a dramatic statement based on nothing.

 

Oh dear

[compman9]

46 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

The majority opinion of technical experts disagree with you and have presented detailed plans to mitigate the virus and move towards normalcy. The fact that you are not willing to detail your alternative suggests that it doesn't exist or is not feasible.

 

Of course I have detailed my alternative suggestion, and I have written it several times . . .

 

Personal responsibility

[CT Sean]

1 hour ago, nomad098 said:

 

This has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've seen against the GBD

 

An open source document signed by a few pranksters and possibly by some to discredit the views of the genuine scientists is irrelevant.

 

 

 

It's entirely relevant.  It shows that anyone can "sign the document" however they choose, and that's not the important part.  The important part is the declaration is just that - a declaration.  It is a series of assertions with no supporting documentation.  If I am to be compelled to believe that masks and social distancing aren't necessary, then someone needs to come up with data supporting it because every practically country in the world is publishing daily data that refutes it.  Countries and areas of countries that don't follow any guidelines have cases that go up.  When they start following guidelines, the cases go down.  When the go down long enough and people start relaxing, they start to go up again.  If you want to refute that - go ahead, but it needs to be done with evidence.

[nomad098]

19 minutes ago, CT Sean said:

 

It's entirely relevant.  It shows that anyone can "sign the document" however they choose, and that's not the important part.  The important part is the declaration is just that - a declaration.  It is a series of assertions with no supporting documentation.  If I am to be compelled to believe that masks and social distancing aren't necessary, then someone needs to come up with data supporting it because every practically country in the world is publishing daily data that refutes it.  Countries and areas of countries that don't follow any guidelines have cases that go up.  When they start following guidelines, the cases go down.  When the go down long enough and people start relaxing, they start to go up again.  If you want to refute that - go ahead, but it needs to be done with evidence.

 

 

I agree with some of what you posted, the declaration is that, just a declaration with no meat on the bones as most declarations are. It does not tell you not to wear a mask, it does not tell you to avoid social distancing. It just recommends hand washing and isolation when infected. 

 

It does point out that with or without a vaccine we will eventually reach an endemic balance with this virus.

 

Unless we get really lucky and get a vaccine like the smallpox one.

 

I do not believe that the GBD is the absolute answer nor do I believe most of the opposing scientists have the absolute answer either.

 

I believe a blended approach is the answer.

 

So what is your answer to covid-19?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Missusdubbya]

On 10/18/2020 at 5:05 PM, compman9 said:

 

The declaration is written by eminent experts that disagree with those you have chosen to believe in - Their report is far from bunk

The declaration is absolutely bunk.

The declaration is an open letter, and in no way backed up by peer-reviewed scientific research nor published in any peer-reviewed science publication. It is a petition only, therefore not legitimate in the world of scientific research. 
 

Peer-reviewed science publication The Lancet definitely labels it bunk.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.

Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity3 and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,

4 and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.

[Missusdubbya]

5 hours ago, CT Sean said:

I am under no obligation to verify the signatories of the declaration - I'm not the one attempting to claim its legitimacy. The fact that it includes such notable experts as:

Mr Banana Rama

 

Dr Johnny Fartpants

 

Dr Person Fakename

 

Professor Notaf Uckingclue

 

Prof Cominic Dummings

 

Tells me all I need to know about the validity of any name on the list.

Don’t forget the eminent Dr Johnny Bananas!!! 🤣🤣🤣

[Bloodgem]

2 hours ago, compman9 said:

 

Oh dear, while trying to catch me out you have included incorrect figures

 

I said, quite clearly WITHOUT UNDERLYING HEALTH ISSUES

 

Thank you for proving my prediction correct

 

9 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

I could quote you the figures that appears on the Office of National Statistics website but you will claim that the figures do not differentiate between those that are fit and health and those that are not. 

 

Also please remember typing sentences in capital letters ( or in your case part of a sentence) is classed as yelling. Which is against CC rules.  

[broberts]

3 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

I agree that if you point to evidence it helps with the conversation. Part of the problem at the moment the evidence is inconclusive and until evidence emerges to prove GBD wrong opposing views hold equal merit.

 

GBD is an opinion not based on any facts. Regardless of conclusive data to the contrary there are those who will continue to support and promulgate the content.

[Bloodgem]

7 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

GBD is an opinion not based on any facts. Regardless of conclusive data to the contrary there are those who will continue to support and promulgate the content.

Thank you for teaching me a new word.

[nomad098]

47 minutes ago, Missusdubbya said:

The declaration is absolutely bunk.

The declaration is an open letter, and in no way backed up by peer-reviewed scientific research nor published in any peer-reviewed science publication. It is a petition only, therefore not legitimate in the world of scientific research. 
 

Peer-reviewed science publication The Lancet definitely labels it bunk.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

 

 

What you have posted is the The John Snow memorandum https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ printed in the Lancet as a rebuttal to the GBD. It has no more validity than the GBD and is not peer-reviewed scientific research. But they are more careful to vet who sign.

 

"Once again, we face rapidly accelerating increase in COVID-19 cases across much of Europe, the USA, and many other countries across the world. It is critical to act decisively and urgently. Effective measures that suppress and control transmission need to be implemented widely, and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic. Continuing restrictions will probably be required in the short term, to reduce transmission and fix ineffective pandemic response systems, in order to prevent future lockdowns. The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. Protecting our economies is inextricably tied to controlling COVID-19. We must protect our workforce and avoid long-term uncertainty."

 

We did this here and government fell flat on the follow through. I am now in a second national lockdown for two weeks with no clear plan on what comes next. The statement is very easy to state but not so easy to implement.

 

The article also fails to take into account the various strains covid-19 and their genetic, epigenetic, virulence and lethality. It points to New Zealand, Japan and Vietnam as models but fails to mention that these countries were first affected by a less virulent and lethal strain of the virus compared to Europe and America when they put their measures in place.

 

It also fails to point out that Japan did not carry out their plan as laid out above.

 

An interesting read though

[chipmaster]

A good NYT article on this:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

 

We can already see two narratives;  New Zealand, Taiwan, China and many other countries, then most of the traditional Western cultures like US leading the other side of things.    

[nomad098]

59 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

GBD is an opinion not based on any facts. Regardless of conclusive data to the contrary there are those who will continue to support and promulgate the content.

 

Please could you point me to this conclusive data. I am not trying to be funny or awkward I do really want to see this data

[Missusdubbya]

6 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

What you have posted is the The John Snow memorandum https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ printed in the Lancet as a rebuttal to the GBD. It has no more validity than the GBD and is not peer-reviewed scientific research. But they are more careful to vet who sign.

 

The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal.

 

The Lancet has published this article, the article directly references journal papers which are peer-reviewed literature and the article is available on Science Direct (a legitimate science journal source). 

 

The Great Barrington Declaration is placed on it's own .org website. 

 

Which do you think is more scientifically legitimate?

 

[nomad098]

4 minutes ago, Missusdubbya said:

 

The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal.

 

The Lancet has published this article, the article directly references journal papers which are peer-reviewed literature and the article is available on Science Direct (a legitimate science journal source). 

 

The Great Barrington Declaration is placed on it's own .org website. 

 

Which do you think is more scientifically legitimate?

 

 

I agree with your first 3 statements. I would point out that John Snow is on a .com website if that means anything.

 

I disagree with your last statement as we are in an evolving situation where what is scientifically legitimate today may well not be in the future.

 

The recommendations set out in the John Snow memorandum are predicated on getting this virus under control. Without Western governments being able to do this we are unable to move forward with the rest, so where does that leave us?

 

I'm not saying the John Snow memorandum is not the answer I just believe like the GBD it's based in science and not the realities people live in.  

 

It could well be the answer will be neither or both

 

 

 

[broberts]

2 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

Please could you point me to this conclusive data. I am not trying to be funny or awkward I do really want to see this data

 

A good place to start, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#

 

There is an awful lot of material available, most of it is pretty specialized and often quite technical. In other words, one has to absorb a fairly large amount of data to confirm the advice offered by WHO.

Edited October 19, 2020 by broberts

[Missusdubbya]

50 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I agree with your first 3 statements. I would point out that John Snow is on a .com website if that means anything.

 

I disagree with your last statement as we are in an evolving situation where what is scientifically legitimate today may well not be in the future.

 

The recommendations set out in the John Snow memorandum are predicated on getting this virus under control. Without Western governments being able to do this we are unable to move forward with the rest, so where does that leave us?

 

I'm not saying the John Snow memorandum is not the answer I just believe like the GBD it's based in science and not the realities people live in.  

 

It could well be the answer will be neither or both

I agree we are in an evolving situation, however it is my belief that we can rely on established science to provide policy advice. Looking to random theories on .org websites to advise policy is a terrible idea IMO.
 

We have seen the result of government policy from science advice in virus control in many Asian countries plus in ‘western’ countries such as Australia and New Zealand (amongst others).

 

 

 

[John&LaLa]

8 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Not sure exactly what is being asked. See link for details on COVID-19 in children. Personally I believe one dead child is too many and worth serious treasure and mitigation efforts to avoid.

 

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/

 

Roughly 25,000 children under the age of 5 die every year. We should work on that as well.

[mayleeman]

Basically, the GBD, as urged here by the OP and others, does depend on a belief in eugenics: if Covid is not a major threat to fit people with no underlying health conditions, then it is an acceptable risk to allow it to run through the population until herd immunity is reached.

 

After all, unfit people and unhealthy people must accept their "personal responsibility" for any heightened risks they face from Covid. "Innocent fit people should not be punished due to governments trying to protect" the foolishly vulnerable.

 

This can be simplified to: some people just aren't worth protecting.

 

In other words, let's just stop any effort to be a moral modern civilization. The Nazis likewise justified their extermination camps as weeding out the impure.

 

Got it.

 

Where is the open-source "GBD is evil trash" for for me to sign?