Over 4,000 Doctors, Public Health Professionals Sign “Great Barrington Declaration,” Urging End to COVID-Restrictions
The declaration emphasizes “Focused Protection” of the vulnerable and building herd immunity.
Over 40,000 people, including over 4,000 epidemiologists, doctors, and public health professionals from around the world, have signed the “Great Barrington Declaration” that urges nations to return to normal life as the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
Called the Great Barrington Declaration, the group issued a letter saying “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.
“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.
“Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.
“Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”
For those interested in an in-depth look at the conference that produced the declaration, the video provides an inside look at the forum. The author, as lead signatories are:
- Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
- Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
- Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
With an emphasis on Focused Protection, the opening paragraphs highlight many of the points I have made previously at Legal Insurrection:
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.
For those of you who wish to sign, please click HERE. I have already done so, highlighting my credentials in biosafety and biochemistry.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is this science? This looks like science.
I think it would be timely for Trump to lead with this as a choice between him and Biden – “go with the scientists and me and re-open like this, or go with Biden and hide in your basement like him.”
Outstanding suggestion!
We need to follow it. Will The Transnational-neo-Marxist/Globalist, Dem-Lefty Hip-and-Woke Crowd, proud authors of this sentiment, lead the way in doing so? And if they do, will the legacy, MS media report such thoughtful leadership?
Anyway, thank you, Leslie, for yours. I read and signed The Declaration. It seems historic as a hallmark of epidemiological, ecological, and economical sense and sensibility.
Who are its benefactors, if any and known? I wonder.
Both sides are looking at the same science – just reaching different conclusions based on the same science.
One side thinks isolation, hiding in place, masks, social distancing can stop the spread of the virus and eradicate the virus (or wait for a vaccine to be developed – even though a vaccine has never been developed for any other variation of a coronavirus.) They believe following the science to minimize the virus spread for eternity is viable.
The other side believes hiding in place until the virus is eradicated or until a vaccine is developed is futile.
They also believe such efforts to retard the development of the human immune system will have long term negative impact on the survival of the human race.
In summary – it the science of fear vs the science of reality.
If science really mattered, this would be a game changer. Unfortunately, what matters is narrative. This isn’t THE narrative, therefore, it does not matter.
Frightfully for all, I can see this possibly holding true in the end.
My comment below, posted at 6:17 PM today, was intended here as a reply.
Unfortunately, this approach would be devastating to the interests of those invested, monetarily and otherwise, in developing a vaccine. It will be largely, if not completely, ignored.
My comment above, posted at 6:17 PM today, was intended here as a reply.
And that’s the cold, hard, bread-and-butter truth of the matter. I can just imagine Fauxci’s reaction to the Declaration’s sound and humane content.
I wonder what Dr Scott Atlas thinks about it, and why, apparently, he and Yale School of Public Health’s Dr Harvey Rische didn’t co-sign it
More to the point, it removes the reason for getting the populace to buy into being made property of the all benevolent State.
The church of Covid-19 won’t be happy to hear this
But, but, but, Science!
These guys are obviously no-nothing hacks. Where’s Fauci?
Oh, and racists.
Over 40,000 people, including over 4,000 epidemiologists, doctors, and public health professionals from around the world, have signed the “Great Barrington Declaration”…
Yeah, but is that 97 percent? It has to be 97 percent to be a consensus or it doesn’t count. Or something.
The 40,000 people are almost entirely irrelevant. The interesting thing is the 4,000 public health professionals.
And the real question is how big of an outlier are they? If they represent 2% of the population of medical professionals and the other 98% are saying the opposite then their declaration isn’t particularly important.
If they represent 25% of the public health professional population and this is being actively debated within the community then people should be following the debate with interest.
The real question is what % of the epidemiologists/doctors etc. who signed this have jobs that are in jeopardy for standing against the current political narrative. And what percentage of this same group would have signed it if their jobs weren’t in jeopardy.
And when the fraud is dispensed with, let the “Nuremberg” trials commence to try those who have worked so diligently to destroy democracy under the guise of an emergency.
If we can’t even put Hillary, Comey, or Holder in jail, no chance of that ever happening.
Ironically, those three not being indicted, is IMO Trump’s fault. Chris Christie wanted to be AG and would have done the job as it is supposed to be done. In fact, CC put Kushner’s father in prison when he was a federal prosecutor and, reportedly, Kushner got Trump to dump his long time friend CC off running the Transition team and being AG. We got Sessions and Rosenstein and the Mueller investigation instead and then Barr, all of whom it seems to me Trump would have been much better off without. IMO this error in judgment has materially affected Trump’s whole tenure in office and may cost him the election.
As much sense as this makes, it still won’t keep someone from getting karenated at the grocery store. I’ll continue to wear my mask to avoid harassment or dirty looks. There are always those close by who feel the need to supervise others.
.
“I’ll continue to wear my mask to avoid harassment or dirty looks.”
And that, right there, is the problem. This is exactly what they want you to do.
For myself, I prefer to exercise my freedoms. Freedom to live my life as I choose. Freedom to not succumb to pressures from those that wish to tell me how to live my life.
I haven’t worn a mask in a grocery store period. No one has come up to me about it and I tend to ignore dirty looks. I only wear a mask at the doctors’ offices and at my local quilting shop (the lady who runs it isn’t in the best of health and is paranoid. I like her so I put up with the mask).
I wear a mask anywhere I am requested to.
Just out of courtesy.
Businesses feel that they have to follow legal (?) directives from State Health Depts. It is too bad these directives were not just recommendations, with enforcement up to each business. After all, “No shoes, no shirt, no service” has been around forever, and it becomes a property rights issue- running as business as you see fit. NS^3 isn’t needed at a beach bar. State legislators need to grow not just a pair but a spine as well to deal with “temporary” edicts from Governors. Endless emergency declarations is a path to tyranny. Not even pandemics trump the rule of law.
IOW you caved.
Won’t happen, it would make way too much sense.
And that’s the cold, hard, bread-and-butter truth of the matter. I can just imagine Fauxci’s reaction to the Declaration’s sound and humane content.
I wonder what Dr Scott Atlas thinks about it, and why, apparently, he and Yale School of Public Health’s Dr Harvey Rische didn’t co-sign it.
Well, he may not have been aware of it.
Okay. Just signed my life away. Again.
Here is a California Doctor that has treated 1,700 cases with his protocol, and lost none.
It isn’t approved by the F.D.A.
Trump really needs to straighten them out.
Muy Doctor wouldn’t prescribe this stull if his tail was afire.
2 minutes, I recommend it.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/doctor-treats-1700-covid-patients-with-zero-deaths/
Of note is that the HCQ regimen also includes zinc and azithromycin.
HCQ is not risky and I am quite disappointed that Trump did not insist on it. It might have made a difference for the election …. “I fight for you every day and will always be on the front line for something I believe in (and not hiding in the basement).”
I suspect the doctors at walter reed were more up to date on the latest info for treatment.
What should be noted is they did not prescribe Remsdivar – the drug promoted by Fauci
The President did get Remdesivir, but seems now to think the monoclonal antibodies were the big factor.
The HCQ cocktail controls viral reproduction, cellular appropriation, and complements immune system function. It is most effective when taken as an early treatment before disease progression.
The Left: “Follow the science!”
Science: “Do [something the Left opposes]”
The Left: “BLASPHEMY!!!”
Scientific findings are but one component of public policy; and most if not all, are narrow band findings full of caveats and exceptions. Change parameters and you change results—research populations of mostly students vs. people over the age of 50 or 65.
Worse is pandering to media seeking ‘scientists’ to render an opinion well outside their field of expertise.
And worse of all, is to ignore the experience of patients in any medical study….getting tired of all this ‘doctor knows best’ condescension.
Notable about the Declaration is that the three principal authors are epidemiologists, as are a high percentage of the primary signatories.
Neither CDC nor WHO seem to have any epidemiologists on their staffs, or at least none who they will allow to speak. Drs. Fauci, Birx, Redfield, and Atlas are NOT epidemiologists. The very experts who should be driving the nations’ responses, the ones whose specialty and life-long dedication are to the very problem we are facing, have been shunted aside in favor of political convenience.
Meanwhile, RINO Mike DeWine tells us to shut up and wear our masks because he thinks he knows better than the scientists. It is not conservatives that are anti-science, it is the Democrats and their RINO pals.