Great Barrington Declaration
Three prominent epidemiologists have just issued a document calling for the Covid19 policies of the governments of the world to change. They point out that, due to the age-related variation in risk from the virus, it would be better to focus on protecting the most vulnerable people while allowing younger people who are less at risk to resume normal life. They say this should be done immediately.
The doctors in question are Dr. Martin Kulldorf of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, UK, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University. Another 50 or so doctors have co-signed with them. One possible source of controversy is that the meeting where the declaration was written was sponsored by a conservative organization, which issued the following statement:
From October 1-4, 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research hosted a remarkable meeting of top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists, to discuss the global emergency created by the unprecedented use of state compulsion in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. The result is The Great Barrington Declaration, which urges a “Focused Protection” strategy....
In an accompanying video, Dr. Sunetra Gupta said that she did not feel that the AIER hosting the meeting was a problem. She pointed out that she and her two colleagues might well disagree on many political matters, but they had no problem agreeing to the points made by the declaration, which takes no political positions.
Readers may make their own judgements. As the declaration is not long, and the participants obviously want it widely known, I have copied it below, along with a link to the Declaration web site.
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 PCR 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.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
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.
Here is a link to the web page of the Declaration:
Comments
A simple search brought up a statement AIER's purpose:
Do I really need to spend time explaining that there is an obvious conflict of interests in the declaration by MDs associated with AIER? That doesn't mean they may not have a reasonable point somewhere in the document but there is a powerful cause to be skeptical. I sure as hell wouldn't go to a medical research institute for economic advice or the tobacco companies for health advice or the oil companies for environmental advice or Dick Cheney to determine if Sadam has WMDs.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Associations
"Do I really need to spend time explaining that there is an obvious conflict of interests in the declaration by MDs associated with AIER?"
The AIER hosted the meeting. But it is wrong to say that these "MDs [are] associated with AIER" as if they worked for that organization. The main affiliations of the doctors are printed right at the end of the declaration--they are with Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, three of the most prestigious universities in the world. Further, the declaration makes no statements at all about the concerns of the AIER. It might be better to discuss what the declaration says than worrying about where it was written.
So you're saying that if
the declaration was the exact opposite of what AIER wanted to promote then they would have hosted the meeting and put their stamp of approval on the declaration? Come on. I was born on a day that ends in "Y" but it wasn't today. "Associations", guilt by association, is a weak kneed attempt at claiming a logical flaw. Do I also have to include more examples of where authority willingly abuses their trusted status?
Using MDs from prestigious organizations is, however, a common tactic (Hell, it's practically universal these days!) attempting to use a logical flaw, appeal to authority, to push an agenda. Proof, no. Suspicion, hell yes. The association of these folks is a valid reason to question their motives and conclusions. The few sentences you quoted claims evidence not verified as true. Specifically, herd immunity (any immunity for that matter) is far from scientifically confirmed to exist with COVID. Comments following mine have pointed that out. There are plenty of valid reasons to question the conclusions of the declaration. That we're unlikely to see the AMA or BJM publish this thing won't be a surprise.
I get it. There are a lot of people looking for anything they can scrape up to justify their doing what they feel they need to do. Don't bother. Do it. Nobody needs to justify anything to anybody. Just don't be surprised when you can't peddle obviously flawed articles with an agenda to knowledgeable people who can think for themselves. I've found most of us here to be smarter than we look.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
For the record
only Bhattacharya among the three is an MD (not that medical school is a good training for epidemiology). AIER has simply found epidemiologists that agree with their right wing libertarian viewpoint. They are out there. They are not in the majority.
"Prestigious Universities" that cater to elites, are funded by
elites and educate the children of elites, it should be noted. That's all I'll say for now, but there are obvious (and obviously fallacious) propaganda techniques being used in the declaration.
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
The Madness Spreads to Belgium
Balance of letter and accompanying article at Great Game India
The idea they are promoting is not new
And has already been proven to be a lousy one.
Lousy idea?
Granma, could you please be more specific about what you mean. And as for proof, what these doctors are advocating for is basically what Sweden did (with the caveat that Sweden did a poor job of protecting their nursing homes, which led to unnecessary deaths, which they admit). Sweden was much criticized for their Covid19 policies at the beginning--no true lockdown, only mild social distancing measures, etc. However, many commentators have been changing their tune based on the data--Sweden now has a very low rate of hospitalizations and deaths due to the virus, and they have been able to reopen their society completely without problems. (And they never closed down their schools.) Meanwhile, many countries that implemented severe lockdown policies are still struggling with the epidemic, while suffering from the effects of the lockdowns, which essentially destroy society in many ways.
I'm not sure if "a lousy idea" is totally justified
but the claim can be supported easily enough. I'd go with it is an idea that is far less simple and straight forward than this declaration would have the reader believe. It's been sprinkled with pixie dust and offered to an increasingly desperate public. The entire upside belongs to the owner and big business class. Those squeezed by desperate times will pay the additional price of having not only their financial lives but also their health wrecked if it fails. The authors have a direct economic interest in others taking chances but have no skin in the game. (Kind of like W and Cheney sending other people's kids into harm's way on lies and bullshit.) Written from a medical perspective the conclusions would most likely be quite different because the primary concern is for health and lives. But then we don't need a lesson in how doctors and scientists will do and say utter nonsense for a nice fat paycheck.
This isn't to say something like these ideas won't eventually have to be tried or that it isn't being tried now on a small scale here and there or that it won't work. It's a pie in the sky idea whose time and justification has yet to become clear.
Specifically, the Sweden experiment is far from being declared either a success or a failure. Even the minister of health, whose idea it was, is unwilling to say much more than he is confident that the Swedish response to the pandemic will eventually be vindicated. He is honest enough to admit the response was a miserable failure for the elderly and that people did not act as he thought they would based on his reading of the conditions and cultural norms in Sweden. He also said the expected economic benefit was far less than expected. Last I looked the Swedish economy has done worse or slightly better than their peer group of neighboring countries who implemented drastic lockdowns. I think the effect of a global economy was what wasn't considered. Swedes could work but their markets were shutdown. No business functions or succeeds without customers. Bottom line is that the response taken by Sweden is not a general model for how to respond to a pandemic. It might work in a targeted area, the basis for their decision, but certainly isn't for broad consumption.
Years from now we may know just how good or bad Sweden did but ten months into a long term event is insufficient time to draw conclusions on which to base decisions to risk lives. I look at it pretty simply. Your economic life means squat all if you're dead or, the greater risk IMHO, your health has been wrecked. Many are in the unenviable position of having no choice but to take otherwise unacceptable risks. Saying its a great idea for everyone to do now isn't the same thing. Anyone who objectively looks at how the US is doing shouldn't need an explanation why.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Sweden has had a similar economic hit
compared to its neighbors, but it's virus toll is exponentially greater than it's nearest neighbors. Just because they didn't force lockdowns doesn't mean that people didn't make the choice themselves.
Also, Covid has a high incidence of long-lasting side effects (we don't know if they are permanent), so any in framing that is just "Well, you probably won't die" is a pretty bad basis to start with.
Are there some ways that things could be safely opened that would be societally beneficial? Sure. To make the argument that requires herd immunity gives away the game though. If these doctors appeared at this event without agreeing with fundemental reason the hosting organization exists, they are idiots
All good points
I will add a couple of things. Vietnam which has 95 million people and shares a border with China has had 35 deaths from COVID-19 and a GDP growth of between 4 and 5% in 2020. If stringent approaches are implemented vigorously and intelligently, they work. The neoliberal west seems to be incapable of vigor and intelligence. Sweden was well up in the top 10 nations in terms of deaths/100,000 population, but they have been dropping down recently, I believe because Swedish people are voluntarily implementing measures that are compulsory in other nations. Also they have been displaced by countries that have really bad epidemics. Sweden is no where near having a high enough rate of citizens that have had COVID-19 to materially suppress the infection rate.
Re: Sweden
The latest reports from Sweden indicate that people are largely behaving as if the pandemic is over. Hardly anyone wears a mask, public transport is packed, people are going about their lives. The hospitalization and death rates from Covid19 remain very low in Sweden. As for the amount of people that have been exposed to the virus, it may well be a majority of the population. It has been shown that serological tests for anti-bodies to Covid19 in a given population typically only catch about 1/5th of those who have actually been exposed. In the case of Sweden, about 20 percent of the population shows anti-bodies. There are also other factors that can make herd immunity a reality even though the percentage who have been infected is nowhere near 100 percent. The chief state epidemiologist of Sweden, Anders Tegnell, has stated that he believes they have indeed achieved herd immunity.
How do you
account for no second wave yet appearing in Sweden?
or for the very low death rates (and no second wave) in Africa?
Lowest death rates among all continents with deaths declining since August and about half of the deaths they did have were from S. Africa - which had one of the severest lockdowns in the world.
source
Edit: "now second wave" to "no second wave")
No, they are not advocating what Sweden did, because the
US cannot possibly do what Sweden did. First, we have no healthcare system. Second, we lack their demographics and baseline average individual health. There are a lot of other differences as well, Sweden should not be used as a comparable.
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Koch-speak
Some issues:
No, that isn't known at all.
There they go again. The entire "herd immunity" issue may well be wishful thinking. The reports of various strains of the coronavirus are now so numerous that I don't need to provide links.
That doesn't begin to cover it. Even the liar Trump knew early on that the spread of the coronavirus was via airborne particles.
We don't know any of this, and this "American Institute for Economic Research" organization damn sure doesn't know.
Personally, I consider just about everything emanating from the "American Institute for Economic Research" to be right-wing propaganda, as they are funded by dark money such as the Koch's DonorsTrust and even direct Koch donations.
RE: koch speak
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
The AIER hosted the meeting. But it is wrong to say that these "MDs [are] associated with AIER" as if they worked for that organization. The main affiliations of the doctors are printed right at the end of the declaration--they are with Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, three of the most prestigious universities in the world. Further, the declaration makes no statements at all about the concerns of the AIER. It might be better to discuss what the declaration says than worrying about where it was written.
As for "herd immunity", that is not the political term you seem to think it is. It is a medical term that describes what happens when a sufficient percentage of a population becomes immune to a pathogen. It can be described pretty precisely and you can be sure these epidemiologists know just how to do that. As for "koch speak", does this quote from the document sound like the Koch brothers:
"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."
Since when have the Kochs' and their ilk given a s__t about the working class?
AEIR cynicism? You bet.
While I know nothing of these particular doctors, the fact that they passed through the gates of various elite universities means little to me. The hundreds of narrative manipulation organizations (aka, propaganda mills) have walls well covered with the sheepskins from these same universities. It might mean something, it might mean the opposite.
When? Since never, and they haven't started now.
Or it might not.
I am not in any way considering the term "herd immunity" as a political term. It is a medical term and is only political when used to buttress particular narratives.
Had this missive been released by a medical organization rather than a well known right-wing propaganda generator, I might give it more air. As usual, follow the money. Were the conclusions made in the letter the opposite, I am quite certain it would never have seen the light of day. The American Institute for Economic Research is about money, and nothing but money. In particular, they are about getting more money into the pockets of their ulta-wealthy donors. Full stop. Everything they release is devoted to this.
So, yes, there is an terrible economic impact from the coronavirus. It's obviously hitting the bank accounts of the uber-rich, as they wouldn't waste time with publishing anything totally altruistic ...there's always a catch. Can't it benefit the common citizen of this earth as well as our miniscule fraction of billionaires? It could.
Thing is, the entire letter hinges on the "herd immunity" idea. If this idea is wrong, and it's starting to look as though it is, then they need to re-write the letter. Perhaps the recommendations in this letter might be followed in the absence of any "herd immunity" thought, but if you pull that "herd immunity" from the letter what's left, with a few feel-good platitudes, is simply a call to replenish the sagging investments of the wealthy AEIR funders.
Uno Problemo
It has a scientific meaning, but it case be and is being used as a political term. Precise definitions are elusive, but for a simple pathogen that attacks in a simple and straightforward manner it is upwards of 60% in a healthy population.
The US is not remotely near 60% and we do not have a healthy population. This disease is not only multiple strains, but it attacks in a bewildering array of ways, attacking sometimes one organ, sometimes another, often many at once. It simply infects the lungs and vanishes for some, and leaves long lasting terribly debilitating impairment of the heart and other organs and/or mysterious global lack of strength and vigor in others.
The crux is that they are misleading. The young are very much at risk at permanent damage, and permanent health impairment as much or moe than anybody. This would be something other than a complete propaganda piece if they would tell the truth and say we estimate the following numbers of deaths per age group and the following number of serious permanent debilities per age group, but we think that the benefit to the economy is worth it.
It is also telling that they think that all those who are continuing to successfully work remotely should go back to the office. Everybody who really can work from home effectively and not suffer isolation, which they would not with all the bars and restaurants and the like open, should do so for the sake of the environment and reducing everybody's stress levels. That they wish risky pointless commuting, simply in order that more people will eat out more often and spend more on petroleum products tells us that health is not remotely their real concern.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Immunity
You evidently have not paid any attention to the evidence that a large portion of the population is already immune to the corona-virus, due to previous exposure to other corona-viruses. I have reported that in this comment thread, but you did not bother to look at those posts. Perhaps you should.
That evidence is simply that, evidence, and very, very far from
conclusive. That's why I ignored it and your commentary about it. Right now it is pretty much in the hypothesis stage.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Good points and well said
There is so much wrong with that whole statement about what they think "should" happen, and I do not have the time available right now to address it fully. You bring up the important points, first being that their premise is based on an assumption of herd immunity that absolutely cannot be assumed at this point and is likely incorrect.
There's another little comment buried in there that tips their hand:
Excuse me, but WTF, and why exactly should people of any age be forced to work "normally" rather than from home? What bullshit.
I have been working from home full-time since March 17, 2020. I am productive, meeting all deadlines and metrics better than ever, and I'm very happy working from home. I am cooking home-cooked meals now and have taken off 45 pounds in the past 7 months. I am working "normally" and I don't want to go back to commuting to an office building (adding 2+ hours to my workday that I don't get paid for) and spending my day stuck in a dreary cubicle farm, rather than in my house with my dogs.
My employer too is still saying their goal is to get everyone back into that building every day, working 'normally' again -- which was a total drag and anything but a f*cking normal way to spend a life. Why won't employers adapt to reality that forcing everyone into offices and cubicles in an office building is not necessary anymore, and not even a good idea? I think it has to do with control more than anything else.
Why they maintain that objective is beyond me, when it has become very, very clear (undeniable) that many of us are able to work from home just fine, successfully, and that doing so is beneficial to employees as well as less costly for the company. It's an old mindset that I think it should be challenged.
Getting back to the extremely abnormal way we were conditioned to live before is not the right goal, imo. I think it is high time for some changes.
Anyway, sorry for going off on that rant, I realize it's not the key point of this article, and that there is far more wrong with it than this one line. I just needed to get that off my chest I suppose. These authors seem to have an agenda for sure, and it is not based on what is good for the people or they would be advocating changes such as work from home and of course the provision of broad social, healthcare, and overall financial support for people who need it. Putting lives at risk in order to rush back to "normal" is a lousy idea, indeed.
Work from home, etc.
Actually, I found your rant about working from home instead of reporting to a cubicle to be refreshing. My younger sister has also been working from home (she does computer IT work) and prefers it to going to the office of her company. Yes, if you have a nice home setup and your job will accommodate it, why not? But...
There are a lot of jobs that cannot be done from home. You are thinking of what is basically a middle class, information work paradigm. Meanwhile, there are whole parts of the world economy that require people to get out of their houses and work together. One real loss of this pandemic is the complete shut-down of the arts. I used to work as a trumpet player, playing in various kinds of groups, from jazz combos to orchestras. That's gone, as long as lockdown lasts. And it is not something that can be replaced by online technology. A whole part of our musical culture--something built up over hundreds of years--has been devastated. Ditto for theater and just about any other artistic pursuit that requires human beings to collaborate with each other. And if you look around our society, I am sure you can find many other examples of things that we used to take for granted that are now denied us because of the lockdowns. This is not making us better. It is not making life better.
You are missing a key point
Everyone is well aware of the extremely painful and difficult effects of this situation. Where I live, Tucson AZ, has (or had) a vibrant music scene and major arts communities of all kinds. The restaurant/foodie community here was also huge and so wonderful, and its mostly devastated at this point. My closest friends are mostly all massage therapists and body worker or builders and other blue collar workers -- who are mostly all out of work now, and have been for months. My friends who are musicians are really struggling with the loss, not only of their income but loss of the life blood of making music together. They have been finding ways to play together at a distance outdoors, but it is nothing like when we would go see and listen to live music when they play. We all feel it acutely.
Please do not imagine that I don't know all of this.
The point I take issue with though is that all of this is not caused by "lockdowns" as you say -- it has been caused by a pandemic of a deadly virus.
The containment efforts that have been taken to mitigate the losses from that pandemic are a result of the virus, they are not the cause of it. And they have been woefully mishandled due to the incompetence of our so-called government.
You are railing against what the virus has wrought. Understandable. I'm sure we all feel that way and can all relate to it.
But the solution is not to throw out all efforts to keep the situation from deteriorating into a much bigger mess with even more losses. Especially in favor of an idea such as "herd immunity" which appears to be very unlikely with this novel coronavirus, because immunity to it seems to be transient.
Getting it and then getting over it apparently does not confer permanent or even long-term immunity. No herd immunity will ever occur naturally in that case. A semi-effective vaccine (like the flu shot) taken annually, or even more often, by a large enough percentage of the population, might get us to a reasonable level of herd immunity to completely end the restrictions. Maybe. But that will take a long time, and will be hindered by the lack of trust in vaccines that is now at a very high level and understandably so.
No one knows how to fix this or how or when it will end. And we all know it is a massive tragedy.
But we also know enough about it now to understand that this idea of just letting countless people die in a probably futile quest for "herd immunity" so that life can get back to something-like-normal for some people (at the expense of others) -- normal that is, if you don't mind the people around you getting very ill and/or suddenly dropping dead quite a bit more often than we've been used to -- is really not going to get us to a good place. We need real solutions, not BS ideas from people with the agenda of getting "the economy open" so that the very rich can continue getting even more rich while not caring in the least about those that get killed off in the process.
Immunity continued
You wrote, "Getting it and then getting over it apparently does not confer permanent or even long-term immunity. No herd immunity will ever occur naturally in that case. A semi-effective vaccine (like the flu shot) taken annually, or even more often, by a large enough percentage of the population, might get us to a reasonable level of herd immunity to completely end the restrictions. Maybe."
To the best of my knowledge, the assertions that long-term immunity is not possible to SARS-CoV-2 are essentially speculation, repeated and amplified by the news media. I find that when I look closely at these kinds of claims, they tend to fall apart for lack of evidence. Meanwhile, there has been serious work by epidemiologists and other scientists, looking into how SARS-CoV-2 really behaves compared to previous pathogens that have afflicted us. There is evidence that 30 to 40 percent of the population is already immune to some degree, because of exposure to previous corona-viruses. This is something Sunetra Gupta has been pursuing, and other scientific groups around the world have been turning up evidence supporting her work.
Much of the scorn that has been poured on the idea of herd immunity to a pathogen is political in origin--that is, there are people who perceive that their interests are threatened if the public accepts such an idea. This is the only reason I can think of why there has been such a vehement denunciation of a principle that is well understood by practicing epidemiologists.
There is evidence
first published September 22, 2020:
Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of COVID-19 herd immunity strategies
This is a very long, very detailed, non-media source for what is currently known about various strategies to deal with this pandemic.
Out of all those words, I tried to find a short quote to summarize the findings. This was difficult, but here goes (emphasis added):
In the event that you are genuinely interested in what the overall data and research do and do not support, if you want non-political, non-media driven information, this article will give you a great deal to chew on.
If you just want to religiously follow one individual who happens to reflect what you want to hear, then so be it. Your post provided for an interesting discussion either way.
PNAS paper on Transmission dynamics
Thanks for mentioning the PNAS paper in your comment. I had read reports of this particular paper, but this is the first time I had seen it. I find the following statements of interest:
And:
This paper is a modeling study, and the assumptions behind the model are questionable, in light of real world developments since it was written. First, there is the assumption that over 400,000 people in the UK would die if no intervention measures were taken. This is an order of magnitude higher than the actual death toll to date.
One could perhaps argue that the lockdowns that the UK has done were responsible for some of the difference, but an order of magnitude? You would certainly see drastic differences in hospitalizations and deaths before and after implementation of lockdown, mask mandates, etc. This has not happened. Instead, during March and April, there was an increase to a peak in deaths, then a decrease of similar duration. By June, the death rate was very low and it has stayed low. By the way, this has been the pattern in most other countries, regardless of what measures they took, including in Sweden, which took only voluntary measures. A very good case can be made that the lockdowns have made no difference in overall death rates, and at best might have affected the timing a bit, slightly prolonging the spread of the virus. As far as the most vulnerable people are concerned, this slowdown is not an advantage; it just means they have to shelter themselves for a longer period of time.
Regarding their statement that approximately 77 percent of the UK population would be infected by the virus if there were no measures, we now know that this is extremely unlikely. We have actually had some "natural" experiments on populations exposed to the virus in a controlled way--the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and the Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, to name two. In each case, you have a population confined to a ship, with no way to escape exposure. And in each case, only a minor fraction of the population was infected. In the case of the Diamond Princess, just under 20 percent of the 3,700 passengers and crew were infected--this despite most of the passengers being retired people in their 60's, 70's and 80's. It was events like this that caused Sunetra Gupta and other scientists to start looking for evidence that many people were already immune to the virus, possibly due to exposure to other corona viruses. This evidence has been found, and explains a great deal about the patterns of infection we have been seeing in the course of the pandemic.
Regarding the burden on hospitals in the UK in April, 2020, the system never came close to being overloaded. Indeed, the temporary "Nightingale" hospitals that were built sat largely unused, and are now being dismantled at considerable expense. The concern of the paper's authors about entire hospital systems being overloaded has proved to be unfounded. There are indeed some hospitals that have marginal capacity in their communities and tend to be stressed by a normal flu season. This is a problem that needs to be corrected. But the huge surges in Covid19 patients that models like this predict have not come to pass anywhere in the world.
I am sorry I cannot be more positive about the paper you referred me to. I know you offered it in good faith. I assure you that I try to read as widely as I can regarding various aspects of the pandemic. I may not be a medical scientist, but I do know how to read and learn.
A different perspective from a COVID survivor
A neighbor of mine sent the first person narrative (below) to me. It was written by a local woman who owns a very popular bookstore. Since my neighbor is an avid reader, she knows the woman in question personally. The COVID-19 survivor is young and was a healthy individual who ran regularly and was training to do a half marathon. What happened to her is terrifying. She was one of the first people in town to contract COVID-19 and her initial test came back negative.
Also I recently read of a contact tracing study put out by Princeton University that appears to show that while most young people do not suffer greatly when they contract COVID-19, they tend to spread it more rapidly than older adults.
Below is the first person narrative of a COVID-19 survivor. Warning.. It is long.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Useful post GG
Anyone that thinks of COVID-19 as a respiratory disease, just doesn't know the extent of symptoms. Many cell types have Ace2 receptors and there are very significant neurological, cardiovascular and other effects associated with COVID-19. SARS is related to, but not identical to, COVID-19 and almost 30% of health care professionals in Hong Kong who contracted SARS were unable to work one year after their "recovery."
Unfortunate outcome
Thank you for sharing.
That said, it does sound like this occurred early on when there
was not the accumulated experience to draw on that is now available.
It's to her doctors' credit that they assumed she had the disease based
on her symptoms even though the test results appeared to indicate otherwise.
However it looks like a critical window of opportunity may have been missed
early on as (if I'm following her account correctly) she didn't receive anything
to combat the coagulopathy that can cause major damage.
These days, from many doctors and in many countries she would have been given
hydroxychloroquine upon a positive test or onset of symptoms. Heparin, a blood thinner
is now a standard treatment (so I understand) in US hospitals but she apparently did not
receive that either.
The steroids she did take may have helped to prevent dangerous over-response by her immune system and contributed to her survival, but only after she suffered damage that may well affect her long term - but that also may well have been preventable.
Policy should be guided by the state of *current* knowledge and resources (or those reasonably expected to be available) - and those are at the moment delivering a very low death rate even where cases appear to be increasing.
The situation of those, like this woman, who have survived but face long-term difficulties in making full recovery certainly deserves attention - and would probably be a better use of resources than throwing billions into research on vaccines that may never work or be more dangerous for most people than the disease itself.
Coagulopathy in COVID-19: Manifestations and management
Sounds like a load of crock
Sounds like a load of crock and those MD maybe well known, but they are spouting claims about COVID and the Corona virus that are no longer considered as valid as first thought. Herd immunity is extremely unlikely as the immunity from having a case only seems to last about 6 months. It's been talked about quite a bit recently, as part of the research surrounding COVID, not just anecdotes. It means a vaccine isn't a cure-all and be more of a yearly vaccine. Or twice a year.
Secondly, this plan will create lop-sided economic hardships, landing hard on the impoverished and minorities, because many live in multi-generational situations. Can't afford childcare? Grandparents! So... when the kids get it.. so long grandparents? Minority cultures with their custom of caring and supporting their families across the generations. Living in crowded conditions. Many poor are handicapped and highly vulnerable but have to stay poor to qualify for government supports. And who cares for them? People desperate for a job to support their families, often.
We aren't shut down because young and healthy are harmed by the virus- but because of the interconnections the majority of people have and need in their life, which includes many vulnerable populations. Only very wealthy people are able to isolate themselves to such a degree, which, frankly, they do anyway, to keep the rabble away.
As time goes by...
Yes, this is what first struck me when I initially read this. In fact, I assumed it must have been written in early-to-mid March of this year. My guess is that it may well have been and is just now being trotted out. Had I read it six months ago, I might have a different opinion. Now? Not so much.
Three years from now we may look back and think, "What idiots we were!" But, right now, even with the little information we have, some things are becoming more clear. Sadly, politics and greed cloud the water.
Agree with one point in the "Focused Protection"
proposal,
We do this to a fault. Obviously, this is a very personal decision, and, should be based upon each individual's health, resources, and personal circumstances. Having said that, we even dropped grocery/fast food 'pick up' option in late April, once the full scope of coronavirus became clear.
Although we're in our 60's (not super elderly, IOW), we have to take strict precautions due to medical conditions, including full PPE.
I agree with Fauci that future lockdowns should be 'targeted.'
Mollie
"The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation."
~~Matt Taibbi, The American Press Is Destroying Itself, June 12, 2020
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
About these doctors
and their "IVY league" institutions, all have a vested "economic" interest in getting "young people" back to normal. If their not teaching young people, what are they going to do?
"Herd immunity" is for LIVE STOCK, not humans. If a few cows die, not that big a deal, but gee, if say 200,000 American's die, well, not to big a deal either it would seem because considering over 400,000 die annually from something as simple as preventable medical errors, hardly anyone knows, or even seems to care. Especially these morons from IVY league institutions who all support the status quo. They would lose their endowments!
Well to be fair, maybe they just don't want to report the statistics of death caused by preventable medical errors that kill a GENOCIDAL level Americans each year. But I digress.
When we're thinking about humans as live stock, rather than as humans, it becomes distant, none relevant. Just think for a moment, when you hear the term herd, does that conjure images of people or live stock in your mind? (Maybe it's just growing up in Texas, but "herd" has always meant, and still does, live stock, to me. But I'm a city boy, not raise in the country!)
Plus, large numbers of mass death is just hard for mere humans (Americans especially) to comprehend. Unless of course one of those medical errors or COVID affects you personally.
I wonder if those doctors or either IVY League institution will study the impact just how much PME's had on the high number of COVID deaths? How many people have been turned away from the hospitals, that eventually died because the hospitals didn't think they were sick enough yet?
And if you really think about it, our entire healthcare system is simply based on the Extortion principal, a fundamental Mafia business model, pay or die.
Just because a couple a doctors from IVY league institutions say something, doesn't mean it's in our best interests to take it to heart, especially when they speak as if we're fucking cattle.
And then there's a resurgence happening in Europe, mainly young people spreading it!
While low death rates are a good thing, it's what the virus does to the body afterward. Gee and if congress allows to roll back the "pre-existing condition" clause, we totally fucked.
But I'm sure these doctors and their IVY league institutions would be glad to help you with those after effects of the virus, for a nice, sizable fee of course.
See what the Mayo Clinic has to say about the impacts of "recovering" from the virus.
snip
Here's the 2 minute vid [video:https://youtu.be/yXD4pLrmLHY]
What does "recovery" actually mean? Does that mean virus free, but severe body / organ damage that will require long term "maintenence" (medical subscription), which will probably income loss of job, ie income and the shit show that comes with that?
Then there's this...From the Hill
(Bold emphasis mine)
Snip
Gee, nothing about the over 210,000 deaths by this failed strategy so far. It's about the damage to the economy, not public health. These doctors support Trump's herd immunity! They should be tarred and feather and run the fuck out of town! Not to mention have their fucking licenses revoked if they are "practicing physicians"!
The 1st clue is the linguistic non-sense of these quack doctors. "Herd Immunity" and "the economy". Dead giveaways, ALWAYS! Just like Hillary's "Access to affordable healthcare is a human right" linguistic gymnastics. Another clue is the age groupings. Just another dog whistle for "means testing".
210,000 dead now, how the fuck you gonna protect anyone, in certain age groupings (will it depend on their wealth / income / district / political party affiliation), allowing the virus to spread even more uncontrollably? WTF kind of lunatic, bat shit crazy talk is that?
PS: Oh, and btw, China has had fewer deaths than Sweden, and their economy is rebounding a lot better than most. I'm just saying...
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
And you are just sayin' well...
I WAS raised on a farm, and herd DID apply to livestock. Repulsive for fucking DOCTORS and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to use that derogatory term.
This Declaration is of the quality, if printed, to start a little burn pile.
No other practical use.
My legal assistant is 22. She was pretty pissed that she was of that group that could be thrown to the winds. Very crude and offensive, insensitive, and bought-and-paid-for, as Declarations go.
Hope you are well, RR
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp I'm still above ground,
I'm still above ground, and thanks for asking.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Maybe being in Texas
you are less exposed to vaccine proselytizers than other places,
but the term "herd immunity" has been used by them for years - only
recently rebranded to 'community immunity' or 'community protection'.
Kind of a squid/calamari thing.
Walter Reed level care for Red State wealthy,
and whatever they can personally afford for everybody else. Remember in the old, old days when you could use a roll of toilet paper saturated with cheap-as-dirt throw-away 40wt oil instead of an air filter (and in a pinch an oil filter too). Welcome to Stanford-Oxford-Harvard healthcare. If your kid gets in, no questions asked, you got healthcare, otherwise, stand in line at the free clinic.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
May be herd stupidity would fit the situation
paid for by herds of bad apples. Canned bad apples.
And I thought it would be a good idea to can the bad apples. At least they are well cooked, dead in a rotten sauce and caged into something they can't escape.
I just hope the bad apples won't have the 'great' idea to send all those canned apples to the next poor country as a donation to help poor and hungry kids to eat.
https://www.euronews.com/live
So, I disqualified myself and give me the yellow card
a replacement player will take over.
Out of politeness I apologize for my words.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Well...
My post about the Great Barrington Declaration has really touched some nerves. I actually appreciate most of the posts--most people here are sincere, even when they are disagreeing vehemently. And that kind of discussion can have a clarifying effect.
I find it interesting the assumptions that are made about the authors of the declaration--that they must be right wing shills, that they are ivy elitists, that they are pushing ideas that benefit big business, etc. It is clear that most of the commenters have not been following the work of these particular epidemiologists. I have, especially that of Sunetra Gupta. Let me tell you a little about her.
She is currently a professor of theoretical epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, where she leads a team of infectious disease epidemiologists. She has done research on various infectious diseases, including malaria, HIV, influenza, bacterial meningitis and COVID-19. She is noted for her left wing politics; in particular she is concerned with the impact of medical policy upon the poor. Here is her speaking in an interview about the epidemiology of the pandemic:
Another important factor that Gupta and her team have been investigating is the fact that many people already have immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because of their exposure to previous corona viruses. The mechanism involves T-cells and mucosal cells in the body, not just anti-bodies in the blood. Because of this inherent immunity in many individuals, a larger portion of the population is already immune to SARS-CoV-2 than is generally appreciated. (This was shown in the case of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where all 3,700 passengers and crew were exposed to the virus in near perfect conditions for transmission. Yet, less than 20 percent of them actually became infected, and only a handful died, even though the passengers were mostly retired people, in their 60's, 70's and 80's.) Dr. Guptra was at first heavily criticized for asserting that immunity to the virus was already widespread, but as time has gone on, other scientists around the world have been finding evidence to support her point of view, evidence that has been published in several recent papers.
I find the calm rationality of Dr. Gupta and her colleagues to be a striking contrast to the atmosphere of hysteria and fear that characterizes so much commentary about the pandemic. This atmosphere is a real problem because it makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about the pandemic, and the reasons why governments world-wide have adopted policies that have never been adopted before in any disease pandemic.
In the past, the policy has been to isolate and quarantine the sick, while allowing the healthy to continue with normal life. Now, we find entire populations of healthy people put under virtual house arrest, and all but essential economic activity restricted. This has never been done before, and I think we are only beginning to realize how serious the consequences are. Then there is the little matter of testing and contact tracing. In the past, it was generally acknowledged that trying to use contract tracing to control a disease that spreads rapidly through the air, such as influenza, was an exercise in futility. In the case of sexually transmitted diseases, it is another matter--if someone presents with syphilis, among the first questions the doctor will ask is, "who have you slept with?" But tracking down flu case contacts has never been done, not just because of the practical difficulty, but also because of the destructive effect it would have on society if you really tried to do it. But now, this is precisely what is being proposed for Covid19. I could go on, but I think you will get the point--we are being asked to accept a whole range of measures that in the past have been unacceptable, and in order to push us into acceptance, we are being bombarded with a constant diet of fear.
It would be one thing if Covid19 were a uniquely deadly disease that threatened to lay waste to large segments of the population--like the black death that killed something like 40 percent of the population of Europe in the middle ages. But we have enough experience now with the virus that we know that it really is a kind of flu. This is not to diminish it--Covid19 does kill people, and it seriously sickens others, sometimes for months. But influenza and pneumonia can be deadly too, and it can take people months to recover from a serious bout of them. And it is a fact that in the UK, currently the death rate from the flu is five times what it is from Covid19. We don't shut up entire populations of healthy people in their houses for flu and pneumonia, and we should not do that for Covid19.
I continue to try to stay the hell out of this, but
I too have been following Gupta, and here's what I can tell you, in many fewer words than you wrote supporting her.
Once upon a time, she opined that the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid-19 was probably less than 0.1%, and might be as low as 0.01%. At the time she made that assertion, Covid-19 had already killed more than 0.01% of the citizens of several countries, including her own.
Some weeks later, when the virus had killed nearly 2/1000 of the citizens of NYC, she doubled down on her assertion that the IFR was probably less than 1/1000. This assertion could only be true if, on average, every citizen of NYC had been infected twice.
Her determination to advocate an IFR that had already been falsified by the data told me all I need to know: It doesn't matter how knowledgeable she is about epidemiology, she is unreliable, due to an emotional and/or ideological attachment to a particular interpretation of the data. The only sensible thing to do, therefore, is ignore her. She cannot be trusted, and she should not be quoted.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
IFR
Are you sure you are not trying to compare apples to oranges? Dr. Gupta was certainly referring to the world-wide infection fatality rate, once the pandemic had run its course. But the IFR in a particular city or country can vary a great deal, depending on many factors, including the capacity of the medical system, the health of the population, etc.
The fact is, we do not yet know the percentage of the world population that has been exposed to the virus, though the W.H.O. made a recent guess:
(Edited with more accurate figures from the WHO.)
@UntimelyRippd
Always trots out NYC in these situations - as if it can be
extrapolated to everywhere else when it is clearly an outlier
in terms of lethality.
Not true
Look back just to the 1918 flu pandemic. There were widespread mandatory shut-downs and business closures.
'A breaking point': Anti-lockdown efforts during Spanish flu offer a cautionary tale for coronavirus
This is not new or unprecedented. Restrictions of this kind are a proven strategy to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Resistance to them and arguments against are also not new.
There are a lot of articles and much information available about how previous pandemics were handled and what the outcomes were, pro and con. Nothing is as simple and clear cut as you suggest. But your belief that this has never been done before is wrong. It has never been done on the same scale before, true, but that's because this is 2020 and not 1918. Today's technological, continuously interconnected world has never existed before, so of course things in the past were not identical. But the strategy is not new, and there is a reason for that.
Re: Spanish Flu
I think most epidemiologists are of the opinion that a repeat of a Spanish Flu-type pandemic is most unlikely. A hundred years ago, there were no anti-biotics, just to mention one factor. That led to a lot of deaths from bacterial pneumonia.
The present pandemic is not even close to the severity of the Spanish Flu, which killed 50 million people in a much smaller world population. The Covid19 pandemic is roughly equivalent to say, the flu pandemic of the 1968-69. Nobody thought of shutting down society for that one--indeed, the Woodstock festival was held in the summer of 1969.
Perhaps on a world wide basis, but, again, the US has
no healthcare. People die in this country daily because they cannot obtain access to antibiotics and other medications, let alone medical procedures.
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
No one said it was like the Spanish Flu
Nice dodge, but you're changing the subject. You claimed that mandated shutdowns have never happened before. My point was, simply, yes they have. Your assertion was wrong.
That you change the subject rather than admit your mistake, is quite telling.
Mandated shutdowns
In 1918, some cities had shutdowns and others did nothing. So far as I know, there were no state-wide shutdowns anywhere. (And the spread of shutdown measures world-wide did not occur in 1918 either.) U.S. society at that time apparently had more of an ability to look at the effect of their actions and adjust than we seem to have now. For example, in San Francisco a mandatory mask policy was tried--and when it had no effect on the course of the 1918 flu pandemic, it was rescinded, and mask wearing was made voluntary.
Regarding shutdowns being unprecedented, I should have filled out what I meant, that the world-wide coordination of identical policies, including shutdowns is something we have not seen before. And what is really striking is the divorce of policy from the effect of the actions. Evidence is accumulating that lockdowns do not save lives or stop the pandemic--they just make acquisition of society-wide immunity take longer, while destroying economic and cultural assets to an unprecedented degree. And what do people like Boris Johnson, Andrew Cuomo and other leaders do? They propose more restrictions and lockdowns! Let's keep trying the same thing and hope for a different result--the definition of insanity.
Hey, OOLF--appreciate
that you posted your essay. (I've only had a chance to read a summary that I saw of this proposal, BTW. Sorta pressured for time this evening. Will try to follow the link, later.)
Honestly, our course has already been prescribed--we're quarantined until this crisis passes. Be it 5 years, or 5 month--doesn't matter.
I'm certain that I'm not as knowledgeable about this topic, as you and many others. Partly, because of this, I'm open to hearing all ideas about the pros and cons of trying to achieve herd immunity.
Mr M and I are confident that we've made the best decision for ourselves, but, respect that many other people wouldn't agree with our very strict course of action. Also, in no way do I believe it's my place to tell others what they should do. Young, or old. (not implying that you do, or have, BTW)
Think we're all just trying to muddle our ways through all of this. So, best of luck to Everyone!
Have a good one.
Mollie
"The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation."
~~Matt Taibbi, The American Press Is Destroying Itself, June 12, 2020
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks
Thanks for your kind comment. I certainly have no intention of telling you or anyone else what they should personally do about the pandemic. I'm just trying to muddle through like everyone else.
Of coourse, there is that false dichotomy, though perhaps
medical students aren't taught any logic.
"We can't just batten down the hatches, we can't simply wait it out, etc. No mention of the remote possibility of a vaccine, of course, jsut as the paper she signed on to brushes off vaccines (they could help in the march toward herd immunity). How many die, how many have permanent lung, heart, liver or kidney damage to rush the the great economic re-opening, especially in a country with no health care system and with a huge underclass intentionally kept in poverty so that they will serve as serfs and who have, as a result, a very, very shitty diet. Well, fuck 'em, right? They don't work with us, live with us, go to our universities and hospitals, and are simply fucking numbers on a graph.
She, right off the top, has no business talking about the US, because she comes from a world where health care is a thing, a real thing, and not a bullshit fantasy. Things ae vastly less risky if care and assistance are readily available, but perhaps that hasn't occurred to her.
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Huh?
Umm, she comes from India - it would probably be news to a few hundred million Indians that care and assistance are readily available to them.
And maybe the widely available care in Africa accounts for their having the lowest death rates from COVID of any continent? (and half of those deaths were from the country there with the most advanced health care system and severest lockdown: South Africa)
Try works at Oxford, they have healthcare.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Well, if that's your preferred hypothesis, then you're welcome
to it. I've only seen a handful of articles on the African response, and they pointed to Africa's populations' learned response from their plentiful experience with multiple horrible epidemics and the people automatically taking necessary precautions to minimize the spread.
If BTW, you are trying to insinuate that they ran out actively seeking infection and obtained the 70=% infection rate that might give them herd immunity with minimal deaths, then I'd want to see documentation before I personally gave such a theory any consideration.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I have just one question to 'out of left field'
should your nick name be read that you are 'from' the left field (ideologically and politically) and still there or are you 'out' of the left field (ideologically and politically), ie you have left that field so to speak.
Thanks for any clarification of that matter. Somehow your writing style remind me of someone, but can't figure it out, who it was ... covid is hurting my brain.
I think I am 'out of right field', but then I may have covid and it attacked my brain. You know the tests are pretty bad and mine was definitely not done properly back in the days. (See gulfgal's comment)
So, who knows what's going on.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Regarding my handle
I do have a leftist background. And "out of left field" is also slang for something unexpected. I'm not sure I'm all that unexpected, but I like the concept...
In case anyone cares to listen to the Dr's in question
argue their position. It is 32 min
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE]
Ivor Cummings has similar views and his video is just 9 min
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKFe0-iL1kw]
I think it is a valid discussion. With universal mask wearing I think we could reopen for those who are low risk and choose to get back to work or play. Chris made the case for that last night. Big idea in the first few minutes.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KANNNty9V3o]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Uh Oh....
Masks. I'm going to post about that....
But seriously, thanks for posting the videos. I find Ivor Cummins to be quite refreshing in his no nonsense way.
One question. Do any of those persons you feature have
healthcare, real, bona -fide actual healthcare? OK, make it two questins - is it possible that having healthcare influences their opinions, that they are oblivious to the plight of the great unwashed as to healthcare, diet, access to clean water even, etc.?
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
So children should teach themselves in person
While I appreciate the logic behind the recommendations of the doctors who are members of an economic think tank, they ignore certain aspects of reality.
The people who teach the least likely to die from SARS-COV2, are not made up of children or predominantly young adults. The children can't teach themselves. The recommendation for resuming in-person classes does not account for the sacrifice of teachers -- in colleges and universities as well. It does not address the support staff at those institutions either. Nor does it address the people at home, many are grandparents raising their grandchildren.
To make the proposal possible, the kids would need to live separately with only other kids and young adults, and teach themselves, drive the busses, work the cafeteria, office, security and perform custodial and lawn services. I'm sure I'm forgetting some other jobs performed by more vulnerable support staff.
As for all the restaurants and venues the proposal says should be open, those kids are going to be quite busy juggling both learning and teaching in-person classes, running and maintaining said facilities, they also will need to run and maintain all the restaurants, bars, venues, etc, so they can also be the only ones enjoying those places.
The rest of us are supposed to somehow hole up in our homes with no way to pay for electricity, or rent, and hope someone's little kid takes a break from running the entire country to bring us some groceries.
Like I said, I appreciate the logic behind the proposal based solely on demographics of death rates, but it misses the fact that children can't run the country so those of us at risk of death can stay in quarantine. It's just not practical.
Re: Children
Children do not spread the virus to adults. That is what the data shows. Sweden never shut down their primary and secondary schools. During that same time, Swedish school teachers did not get infected with the corona-virus more than people in other professions. In cases where school teachers got infected, they got it from their colleagues, or from family members.
Adults can infect children, but the children usually do not get a severe case, and they almost never die. Most cases where children die with Covid19, they were already ill with something else, like, say, leukemia. The chance of a child dying with Covid19 is less than the chance they will be hit by lightning.
BREAKING: Magic virus knows age of potential hosts!!!
I need links to the data that proves this virus has special powers that tell it the ages of potential hosts and only causes adults to infect kids and kids are not infectious to adults, or presumably each other. This must be the most intelligent virus known to mankind!
Kids are walking petri dishes ffs.
Edit: reword for clarity
Data on children
Here is a quote from an article in The Hill:
The quote is from an article by Scott Atlas (who has since become an advisor to President Trump) and Paul E. Petersen. Before you hit the roof, please note that they are citing statistics from the CDC and the Journal of the American Medical Association. The fact that someone decides to try and influence the present administration in a positive direction does not mean that they cannot tell the truth. Here is a link to the whole article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/500349-science-says-open-the-schools
I went to the Hill article - not exactly data
The Hill article is dated 1 June.
I went to the link in the article for Switzerland dated 17 April. Not exactly data. Canada link is a PDF so I chose not to download it to my phone in order to read it. The Netherlands link (modified 30 September), includes data, but I have yet to see anything that supports your claim. It might be in the Netherlands article, but it appears to mostly be percentages of positive cases in age groups.
I'll remind you of what you said:
The Hill article doesn't support what you said. It's impossible for a virus to have a magical infectious rate based on a magical cut off age. It just doesn't happen.
I'm not saying that it affects the kids the same way it does the elderly. I'm saying that a virus does not have the ability to know how old someone is, or the ability to choose not to infect them because of their age or age of the current host.
It's not going to say, "Gosh! I'm currently infecting this 5 year old, but need to spread, and my only options are 37, 42, 63, and 60, so I can't."
Because it's impossible, unless this virus has an age detector and a filter so as not to infect certain age groups based on the age of the host, I give up.
CDC doesn't count?
I repeat what I said about children and the virus. It bears repeating, because the news media don't talk about it, but just go on and on about how difficult it is to reopen schools, etc. It is a fact that virtually no children die from Covid19. Those who do get it mostly experience no symptoms or mild symptoms. This is not something I made up. This is what government health agencies world-wide are reporting.
Sweden never closed their schools. Not ONE student in Sweden died of Covid19. That is striking, isn't it? In New York State, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. with over 20,000 deaths, how many children under 16 have died? 12. And 11 of them already had other serious diseases--leukemia, etc. How do you explain that? That is data. Those are hard figures. If you don't believe me go look it up for yourself. Jeez.
@Deja
Research has shown that spread from asymptomatic people of whatever age is rare, so if kids are asymptomatic anyway and can't infect others.
"Infected" or not, children are only very rarely threatened by the virus themselves nor do they pose a threat of spreading it to others and policies should reflect that.
As someone else said, "jeeze"...
There are always exceptions
13-year-old spreads COVID-19 to 11 family members on vacation, after negative test
Fourteen members of the family stayed together in a house for three weeks, per the CDC. One member, a teenager, had COVID-19 and infected 11 others.
It's a modern version of National Lampoons "Family Vacation."
Was that before or after the discovery that a lot
of those youthful survivors were winding up with severe health issues that didn't kill them, but which will certainly shorten their lives?
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
How young?
When you talk about "youthful survivors" who have developed severe health problems after having Covid19, you should be specific. What are the age ranges, and how many people are we talking about? Because what I have been seeing in the medical reports and statistics that I have been reading is that when you get down to teenagers and below, the vast majority are not affected at all by the pandemic. Are there individual cases here and there of young people who have serious problems after being ill with Covid19? Of course there are. There always have been. Some people get sick and have an awful time. But the questions should be, who, how many, how old? If you can't answer those questions, you can't begin to figure out how to make public policy regarding a pandemic. Do we shut down society because a few young people get sick? Where are the problems we want to address? Last I checked, they were in old age homes, not in child care centers or schools.
The reports I saw specifically mentioned teens, among
others, and those with mild cases as well as those with severe cases. I don't think they gave total numbers and I have not searched for them, because I'm not interested in "managing the pandemic" for profit or any other specific goal so much as human lives and misery. That's in large part because nobody has been, is, or will "manage" this pandemic. There will be no special care or protection or aid for any group or cadre except the rich and very rich, under any scenario, which is part of what is wrong with the Great Barrington Narrative, the implicit promise of things that will never happen in this country and the fact that they completely focus on 1) only deaths and 2) all the non eldeerly who are at high risk of death or severe consequences due to co-morbidities, of which we have a great many because we are an unhealthy population with horrible dietary, work, exercise, and health practices and no health care system whatsoever.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
It appears that it is already happening in this country. Why
(if) it didn't happen in Sweden has no bearing upon the US, nor upon any state in the US. Some places where schools have opened have already seen teachers falling ill with covid. Somebody needs to take a bunch of kids, extract samples of their virii, and sit around with their friends and family inhaling measured substantial viral loads and then report back their findings. Do the kids have a different virus? What is it? Covid 19 (under 7)? What about the 8 year olds?
be well and have a good one.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
It's simple
You are pushing Doctors, who are pushing Trump supported measures for killing our fellow Americans, FULL STOP.
From WSWS:
210,000 American are dead as a result of the failed policies of Trump, and here you are pushing Doctors, who support Trump's failed policies. WTF?
What does that say about you? Well, It tells me everything I need to know, you're not an ally.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Re: It's simple
This kind of political argument is why it can be so hard to talk about the pandemic rationally. Personally, I do not give a flying f___ about what Trump thinks or what he is "responsible for". We all know that he is an ignoramus who will say and do whatever he thinks will benefit him at the moment.
What I am interested in is what the medical data shows, and what policies would be best for dealing with the pandemic, while minimizing harm to society as a whole. This requires reading things like medical studies and following the work of the scientists who are actually trying to understand how to deal with Covid19. And it should not surprise that some of those doctors and scientists are trying to influence the policies of the Administration. Like it or not, at least until after the election, the Trump administration is the one this country has. I don't know if such a hot mess can be bent in productive direction, but I don't blame serious people for trying.
@out of left field These people are
These people are "seriously" trying to get others killed.
Like I said, it's the linguistics of their message, "saving the economy", is first and foremost their main concern, That, in and of it's self, should be the red flag that jumps out and smacks you up side the head, to signal, these mother fuckers are full of shit.
Think for a moment, what has Trump's strategy been all along? Save the economy.
We have over 210,000 dead, 98,000 businesses permanently closed, 10's of millions who have lost their jobs, up to 40-60% will be permanent, they've lost their health insurance, while big business has received TRILLIONS in bail out, all to keep the economy going, which had a over 30% drop in GDP.
Do we really need a scientific analysis, study after study, to see the failure before your eyes of what trying to "save the economy" looks like?
I'll ask one simple question, what is more important, saving lives, or the economy?
These quacks you're pushing, thinks the economy is more important. These quacks you're pushing, are simply doubling down on the failed polices we have been using since the outbreak began. Why can't you see that?
Do you really think Trump will all of a sudden implement "protections" for vulnerable people, in certain age groups, who are not republicans? Gee, what happens to older people who are not so call Christians, and happen to be democrats too? Do you really expect republican CEO's of hospitals and Nursing homes to provide the necessary protections for Muslims?
What about Black people, I mean, gee, they have been treated so well during this pandemic, by the healthcare community, that has turn them away in DROVES because they don't have insurance or they are not taken seriously.
For example, from the California Healthcare Foundation:
Think about that, this lady was discharged when her oxygen levels were below 90%. The "science" says you're not supposed to do that. I had to threaten a doctor with violence, just to get my wife a mammogram, because she wasn't 40. She was 38 at the time. She has a history of cancer in her family and she discovered a lump in her breasts, but the doctor refused, until I threaten to kick his ass all over his doctor office.
There is no "science" that a woman has to be 40, to get a mammogram! It's based on "economics" not science, like most of our entire healthcare system, is based on economics, not science.
Science doesn't mean shit, if you ignore it, like these fucking QUACKS YOU ARE PUSHING TO THIS COMMUNITY, who want to "save the economy", over saving people, and not taking into consideration the result of the existing informal "herd immunity" polices already in place, that they are doubling down on.
Any doctor that wants to "save the economy" over people, during a lethal pandemic that has killed over 210,000 people, is a fucking quack! FULL STOP!
Also, anyone the Trump admin embraces, should be a fucking wake up call! Hello!
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Rational discussion pretty rare on this topic
.
Santa's brother, Science Claus, has been very busy dropping Scientific Truth into the stockings hanging from the C99 fireplace mantle today. Final and binding conclusions delivered without any citation whatsoever, coupled with sarcasm,condescension and contempt:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have never understood the point of rhetoric like that on message boards. Of course I have seen it before and I am sure that I have indulged in the vice often over my 20 years indulging this strange habit. It is not persuasive. Quite the opposite, it looks to me like an attempt at intimidation. But who knows why people post stuff on the internet?
Out of Left Field has remained positive and polite in the face of provocative rudeness, which makes his point of view far more persuasive to me. Beyond that shallow, but real, emotional response to sneering "arguments," Left Field does not oversell his point. Some people with some level of credibility dissent from the current mix of policies in certain ways.
Why does that provoke such bitterness?
Thank you, Left Field. I learned a lot from seeing what responses you provoked.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Thank you.
I have been rather flummoxed by the hostility and emotionalism on display from some of the commenters. Your gallery of examples is quite stunning.
Same here
and also from seeing who *fails* to respond to reasonable requests that they back up their assertions
David Icke at Trafalgar Square on what's at stake:
Uh, just curious, but could we not bring about herd
immunity by simply shooting everybody over 40 who hasn't been infected? Would that not be better for the economy, or do we still need the consumers?
Sacrificing a bunch of people & shortening the lives of another bunch & ruining the health of another bunch is only going to minimize the harm to society as a whole if the survivors obtain all of the assets and income streams of the decedents and up their spending to make up for their absence as consumers. Those with ruined health will possibly spend enough on pharmaceuticals, air delivery systems and mobility aids to offset their decreased spending on everything else, but it is a toss up. The harm to society as a whole is puirely a question of economics, so SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DO AN HONEST, FULL DISCLOSURE, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS! (and show all of their assumptions)
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I have one last question, which is exactly how many of
these doctors and the co-signers, and their sponsors and confreres at the think tank and the talk show hosts and politicians who advocate that we simply "go get herd immunity" have themselves, personally actively tried to get the disease in order to hurry the herd's acquisition of immunity along. They are, if anybody is, the best suited to go forth and seek infection because they are those who are certain to get the best available care. So where is the manifestation of their belief that this is the best course for me and thee, if they don't themselves want to go dive into the pool?
In the US there will be no special care of the most at risk, probably the opposite, unless some local church has one day a month where they will pick up the tab to have Uber Eats throw cold happy meals on the porches of homebound elderly members of their sect. Actually, they think all those under 75, even with compromised immune systems or other serious pre-exisiting health issues should all be commuting to work in cube farms, even if the currently successfully work from home, which is an example of the special care intended. In this country there is "home food delivery for the elderly", the elderly can order food from restaurants and pay to have it delivered more or less intact and lukewarm, or they can order from select grocers and pay to have whatever substitutions the pickers select for them delivered within the next couple of days, and that will continue to be the case for so long as the companies can make at least the same profit as they do from walk-ups, which, when you stop and think about it, is the tip off that the whole statement is bogus. If you think back to last year and the preceding ones, more and more elderly were working one or two jobs well past retirement age in order to afford "food", shelter and, if they were lucky, some of their meds some of the time and it was getting progressively worse each year. But now, we will take care of them so that everybody else can go back to work while they isolate? Will these doctors and economists and such be paying for that? You know a proposal is meritless when it relies upon an impossible premise, such as the corporate-government symbiote doing anything whatsoever for the benefit of the populace. They don't need those consumers that bad that they will help them to survive in any way, let alone provide them frills.
Be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
This discussion is missing a step.
There must be an agreement of how herd immunity works.
There must be an understanding of the conditions that must be met before herd immunity is possible.
An analysis based on known disease and population variables will calculate the the cost of achieving herd immunity. The cost can range from minimal (100 percent immunity success with few deaths) .... to no immunity and a reliance on prevention and treatments — with fatalities.
Many scientists have written papers explaining what Herd Immunity means relative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
You can see them here:
1. Go to Google Scholar
2. Type the following into the search field — herd immunity and covid-19
3. The results will be descriptions of recent papers that explain what is meant by "herd immunity" and how it can be achieved.
::
A couple of beliefs expressed here may be misleading.
A. Herd Immunity cannot be achieved against a virus like SARS-CoV-2 without an effective vaccine that confers immunity on 70 percent of the population. This is the understanding. Lifetime immunity is preferred. Shorter immunity periods will require continuous vaccine programs.
B. When experts talk about Herd Immunity across a population, they are speaking about immunity gained with the use of vaccines. No one talks about infecting 70 percent (the minimum) of the population with a deadly, physically-damaging virus resulting in very limited immunity — except for Rush Limbaugh.
C. Even mild infections often result in life-long organ or brain damage. This has not yet been disclosed to the public.
D. Covid-19 does not confer lasting immunity. We learned from collecting blood plasma from those who recovered that immunity begins to slowly drop off after one month. After six months, the plasma may not be effective, therapeutically. The older the patient, the faster the drop off. Re-infection is expected. Immunity acquired through infection and recovery may not offer protection from all the different strains/mutations of the coronavirus.
Immunity indeed
Thanks, Pluto.
For me, what immediately jumped out from the GBD (Great Barrington Declaration) and immediately got my attention was this statement (my bolds):
This statement alone is a primary reason why I wondered aloud whether this document had been drawn up many months ago.
Further, I am concerned with the promotion of this GBD by the AIER (American Institute for Economic Research). After all, the signers of this document didn't just wander into AIER headquarters from the street.
[Busy here today so I may not be able to respond to this in a timely fashion.]
That's why I say there is a step missing.
We reach herd immunity every year with the Flu, using a vaccine. We know that only about 65 percent of the people are going to get a flu shot — and that's enough to stop the virus from finding a new host. It dies out. The last time we had Herd Immunity with a virus this dangerous, disfiguring, debilitating, and deadly was with Polio. It was ugly. Fortunately it was not especially contagious. The Polio vaccine reached levels of herd immunity in the US long before everyone had taken it. It still rages in a few places today, shamefully, because they do not have the vaccine.
The psychopaths making this proposal are just ignorant. No one has explained to them how the world works. Capitalism is their grotesque volcano that is stripping the world of resources for the sake of a few wealthy money hoarders to invest in wars. We are not going to throw people into it to their volcano to appease the psychopaths. Their greedy, selfish world is coming to an end. There are better ways to live. Decent ways.
@out of left field @Pluto's Republic THIS RIGHT
THIS RIGHT HERE!
There is no viable vaccine to help develop live stock immunity in humans. Without a viable vaccine, the financial costs and harm to society will be greater than the inconvenience of wearing a masks and protecting our fellow humans through social distancing and other protective measures.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Re: Vaccine
There is not going to be an effective vaccine any time soon. The vaccines currently under development for Covid19 are aimed at some relief of symptoms, but will not prevent infection or death from severe cases. Indeed, effectiveness similar to current flu vaccines (which only reach about 50 percent effectiveness, if that) is not guaranteed. And as for safety, the rushed development time for the current Covid vaccines means we will not know about serious side effects and dangers when they are first introduced. It takes testing in thousands of people over a couple of years to find out if a vaccine is really safe. Think about that.
As for herd immunity to Covid, you are forgetting that a substantial portion of the population has already shown signs of innate immunity to the virus--perhaps 30 to 40 percent. This has already been shown by several different studies in various parts of the world. Add in that in some parts of the world--New York City, Italy, Sweden--there are signs that a majority of the population has already been exposed to the virus, and those who are going to be infected have been. In these places, the pattern of hospitalization and deaths already behaves as if herd immunity has been achieved. In NYC for example, there were massive street demonstrations in early June after the death of George Floyd, and yet there was no subsequent spike in infections or deaths afterwards. (In Houston, by contrast, there was a spike in hospitalizations of people with Covid after their demonstrations. They still had a way to go in exposing their population.)