16.4 C
Auckland
Thursday, April 25, 2024

Popular Now

60,000 scientists and doctors sign Great Barrington Declaration calling for ‘focussed protection’ in dealing with COVID

60,000 doctors and scientists have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration. Nearly 900,000 signatures in total have been submitted as awareness of the declaration grows around the world.

The declaration was authored by three eminent scientists:

  • Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring 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.

One the original co-signers was Dr. Simon Thornley an epidemiologist and biostatistician at the University of Auckland.

The declaration calls for politicians to implement policies that will allow communities to reach herd immunity, which is the point at which the rate of new infections is stable. The drive for mass mRNA vaccination makes achieving herd immunity impossible.

Text of the Great Barrington Declaration:

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.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. 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.

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.

The declaration can be signed at gbdeclaration.org.

Promoted Content

No login required to comment. Name, email and web site fields are optional. Please keep comments respectful, civil and constructive. Moderation times can vary from a few minutes to a few hours. Comments may also be scanned periodically by Artificial Intelligence to eliminate trolls and spam.

21 COMMENTS

    • are you suffering from mRNA brain fade? The declaration is against mass vaccination, whether mRNA or not, so the title is 100% accurate

    • Can you read?

      “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. ”

      Idiot.

  1. Agreed with Wiley. Based on the information presented in this article, the title is misleading. When one reads the Barrington declaration presented it’s clear it isn’t against mrna vaccines. The Great Barrington declaration Isn’t even against vaccines, so I’m unsure where Grizz and Kargul are reading from – but they are incorrect to the point where they are misinforming others.

  2. I like to share this if the title can’t be debunked in one second by provaxxers. I read that this declaration is against lockdowns and the secondary medical results. So a provaxxer will slam that to my ears. So can please anybody tell me where it reads that they are against the vaccinations. (where it is about mRNA or vector based vaccines)

    Now the headlines doesn’t bare the load for me to use it in a discussion on twitter and knowing to lose this one…

  3. The problem is that , who has verified these scientists and doctors are real ??

    It’d be very difficult to know the truth , is it not ?

  4. Is Daily Telegraph NZ antivax? The Barrington declaration has nothing to do with “AGAINST MASS MRNA JABS”. Please correct the title, it’s used to fuel antivax support

  5. […] contraproductieve maatregelen als lockdowns en gevaarlijke vaccinatiedwang voor kleine kinderen die zelfs de WHO ontraadt. Dat is alvast één kaart minder, waardoor het politiek gedreven kaartenhuis al fors uit het lood […]

  6. The Original (and methinks brilliant) declaration had the subheading: “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. ” (https://gbdeclaration.org/). Its intention (although quite clear) was not to polarize but to present alternatives. The above heading really does polarize. I understand (and share) the anger, but feel the line below “calls for politicians…” states their plea in a way which might persuade better : – )

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest

Trending

Sport

Daily Life

Opinion

Wellington
broken clouds
17 ° C
17.3 °
16.8 °
61 %
12.4kmh
75 %
Thu
17 °
Fri
16 °
Sat
13 °
Sun
15 °
Mon
15 °
-- Free Ads --spot_img