At UnHerd Thomas Fazi and Toby Green declare vindication:
In view of this, it seems obvious that the focused protection approach championed by the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) — based on “allow[ing] 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†— was the right course of action. It would have avoided inflicting needless pain on workers, women and children through repeated lockdowns, while arguably saving countless lives, by focusing first and foremost on the elderly and especially on nursing homes.
Naturally, the way in which this worked would have been very different in different settings. While in richer countries the resources and infrastructure were certainly available to direct policy in this way, in poorer countries with high Covid mortality and weak healthcare systems — such as Latin America, India and South Africa — the capacity of governments to offer focused protection was limited. Nevertheless, funds could have been used for this purpose, rather than to fund schemes such as contact tracing, which the WHO had specifically disbarred in all circumstances as a pandemic response in its aforementioned 2019 report.
Instead, countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Peru and South Africa have faced the catastrophe of both severe Covid restrictions and high Covid mortality. What has followed is the destruction of the livelihoods and access to food of tens of millions of citizens; a recent report showed that after almost two years, Covid restrictions have completely shattered the world’s informal economies, with 40% of domestic workers, street vendors and waste pickers still earning less than 75% of their pre-Covid earnings.
Unfortunately, their preferred political strategy, framing restrictions in terms of solidarity, was and remains impossible. If anything the politicization of the pandemic is increasing, with those who refuse vaccination being mocked for it and those who make mistaken or misinformed statements castigated as “liars”. My view, that the stakes must be lowered, will never be popular as long as politics is seen as a path to wealth and power.
I commend you, Dave, for posting this article as it calls into question tenets some have adamantly claimed to be indisputable “science,†supported by gold standard research and iron-clad government statistics. The Great Barrington Declaration was described here as flawed. The thousands of great scientists, physicians, epidemiologists signing on to it were treated in a dismissive manner. Most of these same medical minds, however, have carried on, forming international groups calling for the same GBD treatment protocols, including the right of physicians to prescribe antivirals without threats of losing their licenses from medical boards. Even virologists like Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Michael Yeadon have been discredited because of their cautionary remarks about the safety of mRNA vaccines. – even though the former was involved in creating the mRNA technology behind these vaccines, and the latter was a former VP at Pfizer.
Because of blinders worn by the medical/political establishment around the world, people have been subjected to years of a one-sided, media-pushed campaign of fear and government enforced restrictions. Here in the U.S. critical thinking or professional debate, opposing this Fauci-led, NIH, CDC, WHO guidance, was labeled “misinformation†and then summarily censored. Currently, however, whistleblower-leaked documents are making their way into smaller independent media sources. If or when they are validated to be true, more evidence will be revealed that the lengthy pandemic response was the result of a massive, deliberate global cover-up, the likes we’ve never seen before in modern history. Of course the main stream media will do anything to keep such a development from the public eye – a tactic it has deployed with great success by either ignoring the story, or simply downgrading it’s findings as a conspiracy theory.
A paragraph that really stood out to me in the posted commentary, is how the Left faction of the Democrat party has devolved, literally extinguishing some of it’s core beliefs and principles:
â€After all, the Left has historically championed civil rights and freedoms in society which are associated with individual liberties: the right to protest, the right to work, the right to sexual independence and freedom. Expanding the freedoms of men and women — while emphasising that this can only be achieved through collective action — has always been a central tenet of leftist, even socialist-democratic, ideology. So clearly something more complex than “default authoritarianism†is at work in the juxtaposition of the current Covid crisis and the Left’s broad response towards civil and individual liberties.
More magic. How do we do this focused protection? No one has accomplished it or at least no one has been willing to try. What we have is high death rates in the places that give lip service to this approach. If you just want to trade more deaths for more nights at the bar then say so.
Steve
Insanity is described as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different, better outcome. Consequently, I think how the pandemic has been handled here and abroad is insane.
So far, the U.S. has been advocating for social distancing, flimsy masking, threatened lock downs around every corner for everyone, universal vaccinations. What has adhering to this guidance and medical protocols produced? 1) A virus wildly mutating; 2) a populace threatened with all kinds of punitive measures; 3) ambiguity in the real IFR and case number stats; 4) waning vaccine efficacy where 2 shots is now totally ineffective, according to the CDC Director; and 5) innumerable examples of collateral damage to our nation’s mental health, children’s education, the economy.
So, why isn’t a different approach implemented – one addressing public health in a broader frame of reference, where mental, emotional and financial health is taken into consideration? What is accomplished to close all avenues of treatment except for vaccines used under EUAs- especially with drugs that are already FDA-approved (for decades), have few side effects, have been repurposed in other countries and physicians here in the states with success?
Isn’t it riskier to go on like we’ve been doing,rather than ease up on restrictions?
We hit a new record high today in hospitalizations for covid. Record high for pediatric hospitalizations. Large majority are unvaccinated.
Steve
“If you just want to trade more deaths for more nights at the bar then say so.”
Nonsense. You could say the same about drinking and driving. But we don’t take that seriously. You could say the same thing about yearly flu. But we don’t shut down society in an absolutist spasm. We did jack shit in the late 50’s and late 60’s flu’s and we came through just fine. Its all a matter of degree. For political reasons you have simply labeled this disease as special.
“How do we do this focused protection?”
To a large degree we already do. The vaccination rate of the 60 and older crowd is remarkably high. And its by rational individual choice. As for those with comorbidities, for them its buyer beware. If you are morbidly obese its not society’s obligation to shut down and bear the costs of your sins. You stay inside and isolate.
“What we have is high death rates in the places that give lip service to this approach.”
We have high death rates in all sorts of venues choosing all sorts of public policy responses. And vice versa. Do you realize how silly you sound, as a doctor?
There are apparently only 3 viable public policy responses that have mattered. First, vaccination, although oversold, seems to clearly reduce mortality. It is an open question as to what the long term effects are, or how long vaccines will be effective, to whatever degree. It is for philosophers to determine how perfect people would balance the individual and the greater good. But given the authoritarian bent of the current crew in left leaning government, I’m for choice, and stand squarely with Jan.
Second, is social distancing. Subways, bad. Outdoor cafes ballgames etc, meh. The cost benefit of shutting down society? Do we even need to discuss?
The third is masks. If you are not screaming at the top of your lungs about N95’s, marginal as they might be, stick the masks up your ass.
Of course lastly, are therapeutics. Things that shall not be discussed in polite company. One trick vaccine ponies are one trick ponies……..and politicians/partisans. I don’t know where all the results would come out. But to not be pursuing at warp speed and to be criticizing practitioners is borderline criminal.
Desperate steve goes for the kids angle……..
“According to the South Carolina Children’s Hospital Collaborative, which is comprised of four children’s hospitals across the state, 40 kids are currently hospitalized with COVID-19. The previous high was 38, which came at the height of the Delta variant surge.”
Indiana had an increase of 5. TX 30. IL 40. (Ooops. Lets deep six that, blue state) CA 120. That’s a big state. Blue. (uh….) FL 100 Purple/red. See! Child killers! NJ 160. (uh……)
Steve invokes “the children.” Ghoulish.
I couldn’t find the national statistic. But you get the point. Not many kids. Not correlated with public policy.
He who reads medical studies better than the average Joe also embellishes for political propaganda. Clownish.
PS – other costs to kids for draconian measures anyone?
In a post above I talked about the ambiguity of the IFR and case numbers dealing with COVID. This “ambiguity†is especially prevalent when it comes to children coming down with this virus. For some reason their hospitalization numbers are reported as hysterically high – even Justice Sotomayor gave a highly inflated number in her attempts to apparently validate Biden’s vaccine mandates, including insinuations of children being on ventilators. She was totally off base. And, when the nitty gritty true figures are revealed most of these hospitalized children were admitted to the hospital for other maladies, only testing positive for COVID after their admission. Survival rates for under 20 are also something like 99%+.
Why then do we color the health picture of kids and their immunity so inaccurately, forcing them to become vaccinated when in fact there are more risks taking the vaccine than catching the virus? It seems our priorities are all wrong.
How many pediatric hospital beds do we have Drew? How many PICU? Why have some hospitals had to send kids to their adjacent adult hospitals? I know. I have known for a long time. Note that I didnt say we were overwhelmed with pediatric admissions most places, I just noted that we hit a record high.
“You could say the same thing about yearly flu. But we don’t shut down society in an absolutist spasm.”
We have never had this many flu admissions and have never had so many people waiting in the ED for flu and never had so many deaths. Again, this is not like the flu. We did jack shit back then cease we had nothing to offer. ICUs largely did not exist. A pt we would treat with no problems now would die back then.
“The vaccination rate of the 60 and older crowd is remarkably high.”
That is a fair point, but that is really all that has been done. Note that the unvaccinated morbidly obese pt still comes to the hospital when they get sick.
“We have high death rates in all sorts of venues choosing all sorts of public policy responses. ”
Not really, go look. Once you get past the first few months when the mortality was twice as high, deaths are concentrated in the states that dont vaccinate or mitigate. Yes, the other states still have deaths but not nearly the same rate.
“It is an open question as to what the long term effects are, or how long vaccines will be effective, to whatever degree. ”
I will ask you again. I know you wont answer because it blows your argument. When was the last time a vaccine had a late occurring bad effect? What was it? How often does this occur? After billions of vaccinations why arent we seeing problems?
“Second, is social distancing. Subways, bad. Outdoor cafes ballgames etc, meh. The cost benefit of shutting down society? Do we even need to discuss?
Who are you arguing with? I have said many times the risk of outdoor spread is very low. Maybe I missed it but I haven’t seen anyone here claim otherwise.
“The third is masks. If you are not screaming at the top of your lungs about N95’s, marginal as they might be, stick the masks up your ass.”
Trust you saw the recent study where the aerosol scientists looked at the actual viability and infectious ability of aerosolized viruses? (The aerosol scientists have made some important contributions that people pay attention to now that we have covid.) It is on Medrxiv so as always we should have it confirmed but if true then most masks are helpful with cloth least, then surgical, KN 95, N 95 and then N-100. Just guessing but I bet PAPRs are very good also and should be at the top somewhere. The problem with N95s is that they are tight and pretty uncomfortable. A mask people wont wear is not as good as one that they will wear.
” I’m for choice, and stand squarely with Jan.”
That’s fine. I think hospital workers should have to be vaccinated since we take care of people who are vulnerable. The Military and probably a few other groups. After that individual businesses should be abler to decide if they want to mandate. We just need to remember that the choice you support is the choice to infect others and to have people who have been mislead or cant understand the risks of vaccines to die.
“Of course lastly, are therapeutics. Things that shall not be discussed in polite company. ”
Gee, I think we have discussed it a lot. We need more of them and better ones. The ones that work either dont work the well like fluvoxamine or molnupiravir and even when it does work well, like Paxlovid, needs to be given early. We need therapeutics that work later in the infection. I said here before that the strength of OWS was getting the vaccines out but they should have invested more in therapeutics.
Steve