The Great Barrington Declaration

(Doug) #61

I think the U.K. is a good example because there is good surveillance of things - not perfect, but pretty darn good. It may be that the current governmental approach is too restrictive - this remains to be seen, however, because we really don’t know what’s going to happen over the next few months.

On the difference between now and the coming winter, versus this past summer, I think the evidence argues for the opposite, that people are better off getting infected later, rather than earlier. This is because medical science has gotten better at treating Covid-19. Deaths per cases and deaths per hospitalizations are way down. It’s simple stuff like having patients lie on their stomachs, rather than their backs, and also things like the administration of glucocorticosteroids, better methods for giving supplemental oxygen, the usage of convalescent plasma, and more vigilance about blood clotting.

While the appearance of a good vaccine is still a question, it would make a huge further change, massively tilting things further to the “better later than earlier” side.

(Polly) #62

I agree there is merit in the point that they are handling it better than they were in the beginning.

I also think it is probable that the epidemic is over here in the UK. There are loads of positive tests but the PCR test seems to have a high rate of false positives and many of those admitted to hospital for other illnesses are eventually testing positive, whether true positive or false positive is unknown. When they then die of their primary illness they are attributed to the Covid death toll because they had a positive test within the past 28 days.

Dr Mike Yeadon reckons 35% were already immune because of contact with other corona viruses when the pandemic started, he reckons about another 35% became immune during the spring and that the remaining 30% are not enough for the virus to spread through like wild fire because there are insufficient possible hosts to enable that to happen.

His talks are worth watching and considering.

(Doug) #63

Totally agree - interesting stuff. And I’d say that it will be pretty obvious how things turn out, one way or another. The U.K. is still showing less than 2% of the population having been infected, per testing. So that’s quite a ways from Yeadon’s position. :smile:

(Polly) #64

Yes, but I have heard that they are looking for antibodies rather than primed T cells when they investigate whether a person has immunity.

Very little attention is being paid to innate immunity.

(bulkbiker) #65

It doesn’t suit the narrative of fear and panic that for some reason the Govt is trying to maintain.


I’ve been thinking about you a lot, and this ^ seems wrong. COVID is definitely circulating right now, and if you have an underlying condition that makes you more vulnerable it seems like you should be able to work from home (or… sorry, I don’t know what you do - shifted to something that can be done remotely?). GBD or not, those who are vulnerable to more severe cases of the virus should be able to protect themselves.

(Bob M) #67

@Madeleine I’m an attorney, a patent attorney who sees none of his clients ever. Most of my clients are in Europe. And the ones in the US, I don’t meet face-to-face. It’s just that where I live allows attorneys to be “essential”, and my boss wants everyone here. When the state I live in thought attorneys were “essential”, they meant attorneys going to court or signing contracts or seeing people. I do none of those things.

We also have a woman who is immunocompromized who comes to the office, and MANY people in the office do not wear masks. It’s truly disgusting.

For everyone’s perusal:


Thank you! This ^ makes a lot of sense.

(Peter) #69

It was only the old and worthless, so it’s OK. Well, alright then.

Also, anyone who thinks Sweden is some sort of shining example isn’t really keeping up.

“We have a very serious situation,” Prime Minister Stefan Löfven warned, saying the virus was “going in the wrong direction”.

Sweden has reported 31 Covid deaths since Friday, taking the death toll to 5,969 - far higher than its neighbours.

(bulkbiker) #70

Ridiculous and emotive statement.
People die every day.
The vast majority of them are old.

The 15 countries above Sweden in the deaths per million of pop table would love to have Sweden’s results.

As for the deaths… still looks pretty compelling to me…more a second ripple than a second wave

(Polly) #71

I did not say that. Do you really think so? I doubt it!

We have to accept that at some point we all die. If a person has reached the age of eighty something their chances of surviving another five years are getting slimmer with every year that passes. Those in old folks homes are even closer to meeting their maker than those who live independently in their own homes - it is a fact of life.

To keep saying every death is sad for the family and friends etc etc is trite and somewhat trying. I think that such sentiments are a given. The facts are that this virus carries off those who are metabolically deranged and those who are very close to the end of life in any event. For the rest of us to stop living because it is among us is unnatural behaviour.


that’s so clearly not what she was saying, and in fact in Sweden one of the things the officials lament is that they didn’t do a better job in the nursing homes.

Most folks following the virus - and viral trends in general - would expect a rise as we move into winter. I don’t take that as a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, and they’re taking measures to contain it and make sure the hospitals aren’t overwhelmed.

(Marion) #73

Well, Melbourne then.
In June 23,000 cases of local transmission. Today 0 cases of local transmission.

(Marion) #74

My mother died last year at 94, in aged care. she was in aged care for 11 years because her home was on a river with no road and it became too difficult for her to manage a boat. That age, 94 is not uncommon for Australian women these days.

Not sure why your locals have a short life expectancy but this is an international forum,so generalizations such as you are making don’t hold up. I am 70yo and am unwilling to be killed off prematurely and casually.

(Polly) #75

But Melbourne have just been in a very severe and restrictive lockdown. This does not demonstrate that lockdowns work, it demonstrates that you can delay the virus passing through the population but at some point in time it is going to have to. happen.

(Marion) #76

This is illogical.
Zero local cases proves lockdowns do work.

(Polly) #77

in what way illogical, please?

(Doug) #78

:smile: Taiwan couldn’t sit back and twiddle its thumbs - there were over 2 million people that regularly came and went from China. They had to get it going. And they did incredibly well - too bad that we don’t know the situation in China itself.

(Polly) #79

No it proves that you can temporarily suppress transmission of the virus but the virus will always still be there when the lockdown unlocks. Do you think that a semi-permananent or serial lockdown would be a good solution?

(Bacon by any other name would taste just as great.) #80

As I believe I’ve mentioned before, the point of the lock down is to slow transmission to a rate manageable by the healthcare system. No region is going to keep the virus out for ever.

At best, your area might be able to keep the virus at bay long enough for everyone to get vaccinated, before relaxing precautions. But a vaccine is not likely to be ready before the middle of next year, if then, and then there is the challenge of managing widespread vaccinations.

I assume that there will be the usual folks complaining about the vaccine and refusing to get it, once it is available. At that point, I’d be in favour of letting nature take its course.