COVID-19

[Stoner]

Let's change the parameters and see if the idea holds up/remains perfectly acceptable for our society:

"As world-renowned experts continue to be perplexed as to why Covid-19 is largely killing and disabling the young, whites and the wealthy, today hundreds of public health experts argued for a return to normal for the rest of the American population: people of color, the poor and the elderly have had enough. As Jean English of Maple Manor, an assisted living home in Wheeling, West Virginia, exclaimed, 'I just want to go back to Cracker Barrel with my girl friends! And I'm tired of sending my grandsons $10 every year anyway!"

Well, does it hold up?

[atoq]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

First bolded -- do you not think economic activity -- i.e. millions of job losses -- affects public health outcomes?

Second bolded -- no -- they say this, which I also quoted upthread: 

Please read more carefully. I repeated the part you quoted about the potential health results. Do you receive vaccinations or cancer screenings at restaurants, museums, concerts, sporting events, etc? There are lots of safe options for outdoor exercise to maintain cardiovascular health, leaving 'deteriorating mental health'. I acknowledged the link between unemployment and deteriorating mental health in bold #2 (perhaps not clearly enough), but the authors provide no evidence or analysis about and whether or not people will be more sad if they lose their job, or if the society lets the virus goes unchecked a lot of people die, including friends and family.

Nor do they make a compelling case for how things can be reopened without unchecked spreading of the virus. Let's check their suggestions.

Quote

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. 

As discussed, entirely staffing nursing homes with people with acquired immunity is entirely unrealistic given training and overall demands needed to conduct this type of work. It's really hard work and requires training, experience and a certain temperament. That and grocery delivery are the only specific suggestions from this declaration. Otherwise they say its possible to do and well within the scope of their profession. I get this is meant to be a general statement and not a detailed plan, but do you really find this a compelling argument, when they offer no data or specific plans? It seems strange to me this supposed broad coalition of experts can't suggest anything else, and had to resort to "We can totally do this" when the reality of the situation has shown otherwise, given the common dynamic of one superspreader can infect many people.

The highest levels of Western leadership can’t even adhere to suggested bio security rules in their inner circles. Why does the “Great Barrington Declaration,” depend on the fanciful thinking that society at large can functionally implement these safeguards?

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Third bolded -- I don't see any claim of a consensus anywhere in their statement.

This sentiment is implied in the how the authors (and you and others reposting online) have stressed the prestigious academic institutions involved and the overall number of doctors that have signed on, regardless of their actual expertise in this field.

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Fourth bolded -- the declaration doesn't claim to be a cost-benefit study that is submitted for peer review.

They are certainly making cost-benefit conclusions that could have serious implications on public health, yet they provide no statistics, citations or evidence to support those conclusions, which is inherently dangerous. The following is literally the only statistic in the entire piece (age stratified mortality):

Quote

We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young.

The stat is mentioned tangentially while contrasting the two extreme age groups and ignoring all of the age ranges in between to whom the risk is considerably higher than the flu. A single statistic, poorly explained or even misrepresented, is inexcusably sloppy. The role of data driven decision making is not discussed once, despite the number of biostatisticians and epidemiologists that have signed this document. Of course it doesn't claim to be submitted for peer-review, because the authors would undoubtedly know given their professions that any scientific conclusions provided without any evidence would be immediately dismissed. My point is this declaration doesn't pass any scientific muster.  These are people who are using their positions and credibility to bend science to what they believe is best for society.

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Sixth bolded -- what is your expertise in this area?  Is it comparable to that of the authors?

Nice try, making this about my expertise. I engage with the scientific community enough to know that the scientific method is based on observation, empiricism, rigor, and skepticism of cognitive assumptions. This declaration doesn't involve any of these things. I won't ask for your credentials.

 

[LGR4GM]

12 minutes ago, atoq said:

Please read more carefully. I repeated the part you quoted about the potential health results. Do you receive vaccinations or cancer screenings at restaurants, museums, concerts, sporting events, etc? There are lots of safe options for outdoor exercise to maintain cardiovascular health, leaving 'deteriorating mental health'. I acknowledged the link between unemployment and deteriorating mental health in bold #2 (perhaps not clearly enough), but the authors provide no evidence or analysis about and whether or not people will be more sad if they lose their job, or if the society lets the virus goes unchecked a lot of people die, including friends and family.

Nor do they make a compelling case for how things can be reopened without unchecked spreading of the virus. Let's check their suggestions.

As discussed, entirely staffing nursing homes with people with acquired immunity is entirely unrealistic given training and overall demands needed to conduct this type of work. It's really hard work and requires training, experience and a certain temperament. That and grocery delivery are the only specific suggestions from this declaration. Otherwise they say its possible to do and well within the scope of their profession. I get this is meant to be a general statement and not a detailed plan, but do you really find this a compelling argument, when they offer no data or specific plans? It seems strange to me this supposed broad coalition of experts can't suggest anything else, and had to resort to "We can totally do this" when the reality of the situation has shown otherwise, given the common dynamic of one superspreader can infect many people.

The highest levels of Western leadership can’t even adhere to suggested bio security rules in their inner circles. Why does the “Great Barrington Declaration,” depend on the fanciful thinking that society at large can functionally implement these safeguards?

This sentiment is implied in the how the authors (and you and others reposting online) have stressed the prestigious academic institutions involved and the overall number of doctors that have signed on, regardless of their actual expertise in this field.

They are certainly making cost-benefit conclusions that could have serious implications on public health, yet they provide no statistics, citations or evidence to support those conclusions, which is inherently dangerous. The following is literally the only statistic in the entire piece (age stratified mortality):

The stat is mentioned tangentially while contrasting the two extreme age groups and ignoring all of the age ranges in between to whom the risk is considerably higher than the flu. A single statistic, poorly explained or even misrepresented, is inexcusably sloppy. The role of data driven decision making is not discussed once, despite the number of biostatisticians and epidemiologists that have signed this document. Of course it doesn't claim to be submitted for peer-review, because the authors would undoubtedly know given their professions that any scientific conclusions provided without any evidence would be immediately dismissed. My point is this declaration doesn't pass any scientific muster.  These are people who are using their positions and credibility to bend science to what they believe is best for society.

Nice try, making this about my expertise. I engage with the scientific community enough to know that the scientific method is based on observation, empiricism, rigor, and skepticism of cognitive assumptions. This declaration doesn't involve any of these things. I won't ask for your credentials.

 

[North Buffalo]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

The problem with opening things up to more resilient members of society is, and always was, they will be interacting with those who are not so resilient.  Students will be in enclosed spaces with teachers of varying age and health, coming home to parents with varying degrees of health (who then go to work with people of varying degrees of health) and be coached by people of various ages and degrees of health.  We will come in contact with first responders with health issues, doctors with health issues, retail store workers and customers with health issues.  Opening society fully for some will put substantial risk on many others who still need to work and be in society and interact with the people who would now be doing things normally.  And don’t think for a minute that people will be OK with not visiting elderly parents to make life more normal for younger people.

The answer to me seems to be to do what we are doing until we can identify who are the superspreaders.

Agreed if everyone followed protocols.. mask wearing, hand washing, staying out of others faces yeh but i have seen enough lack of discipline and out right stupidity to question full reopening.  Part of reasons that I judge as societal and political ill leave it at.  Agree economically it would be better to reopen fully, psychologically imo its a mixed bag because of the losses that would result.... Better to reopen as much as possible with strict protocols.  I know better... gonna happen in fits and starts with varying results.  Be safe people.

[LTS]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Wasn't anybody listening?!?!?

There is a CO2 shortage due to ethanol plant closures!! Carbonated beverages are at risk here!!!

Flat beer, or gin and tonics?!

Am I the only one who is a little nervous about this??!!

 

See, CO2 is also used to drive beer lines.. and that would be a serious problem. 🙂

Some breweries are actually starting to capture the CO2 released during fermentation and reuse it. Makes sense, there's a good amount of it released.

[Weave]

Freeman, to use your words, that was extremely obnoxious.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

Freeman, to use your words, that was extremely obnoxious.

I was just about to post the same thing.

[Wyldnwoody44]

All that we are doing is prolonging this whole thing at this point.... All of those that were going to get it, will most likely get it. Instead of getting it on and over with, we get to watch an already undereducated population, miss out on school, and social interaction; watch long time businesses close down, families get torn apart (and don't give me numbers about the death toll, it's relatively small considering we don't have "data" on the potential fallout from this yet) all while the big dogs at the top continue to rake in the dough.... I'm sure amazon is really hurting right now.... Not. 

The media has us so damn afraid that I honestly don't know what has happened to people, critical thinking is gone, fear is trumping any semblance of normalcy, I wasn't cool with this in March, and I'm not cool with this in October. I've gotten a little less heated overall, but Its simply just silly in regards to the stuff I'm seeing. 

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

<snip>

 

9th bolded -- again, this isn't presented as a scientific study.  Your (and, to be fair, others') insistence on criticizing it as such is like criticizing an apple for not being an orange, and likely derives from, ironically enough, your cognitive assumptions about what is best for society.

 

No offense, but seems a bit disingenuous.

The first line of the webpage, "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists,…" (FTR, wtf is a public health scientist?)

After the "declaration" we get this -

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, em. Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Mainz, Germany

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH, Physician with the VA, epidemiology, health equity practice, and health impact assessment of public policy, USA

Prof. Stephen Bremner,
Professor of Medical Statistics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, UK

Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester, UK

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, with expertise in risk prediction, University of Edinburgh, UK 

Prof. Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Department of Oncology, St. George’s, University of London, UK

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA.

Dr. Eitan Friedman, MD, PhD. Founder and Director, The Susanne Levy Gertner Oncogenetics Unit, The Danek Gertner Institute of Human Genetics, Chaim Sheba Medical Center and Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Depertment of Human Genetics and Biochemistry, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Uri Gavish, an expert in algorithm analysis and a biomedical consultant

 

Prof. Motti Gerlic, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, professor, a mathematician focussing on population dynamics, evolutionary theory and infectious disease epidemiology. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Prof. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, UK

Dr. Michael Jackson, PhD is an ecologist and research fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Dr. David Katz, MD, MPH, President, True Health Initiative and the Founder and Former Director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, PhD., biostatistician and data scientist, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science. Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Michael Levitt, PhD is a biophysicist and a professor of structural biology. Dr. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems. Stanford University, USA

Prof. David Livermore, Professor, microbiologist with expertise in disease epidemiology, antibiotic resistance and rapid diagnostics. University of East Anglia, UK

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden.

Dr. Paul McKeigue, professor of epidemiology and public health physician, with expertise in statistical modelling of disease. University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Prof. Ariel Munitz, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Prof. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, Professor of Finance, Director at Behavioural Finance Working Group, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, UK

Prof. Partha P. Majumder, PhD, FNA, FASc, FNASc, FTWAS National Science Chair, Distinguished Professor and Founder National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, KalyaniEmeritus Professor Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India

Prof. Udi Qimron, Chair, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Professor of Philosophy specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, UK

Dr. Mario Recker, Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics at the Centre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter, UK

Dr. Eyal Shahar, MD professor (emeritus) of public health, physician, epidemiologist, with expertise in causal and statistical inference. University of Arizona, USA

Prof. Karol Sikora MA, PhD, MBBChir, FRCP, FRCR, FFPM, Medical Director of Rutherford Health, Oncologist, & Dean of Medicine, UK

Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, PhD. associate professor of biostatistics. Director of the Baylor Statistical Consulting Center. Focus on infectious disease spread and diagnosis. Baylor University, USA

Dr. Simon Thornley, PhD, epidemiologist, biostatistics and epidemiological analysis, communicable and non-communicable diseases. University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Prof. Ellen Townsend, Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, UK.

Prof. Lisa White, Professor of Modelling and Epidemiology Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, UK

Prof. Simon Wood, professor, statistician with expertise in statistical methodology, applied statistics and mathematical modelling in biology, University of Edinburgh, UK

 

Ooooo, those sure look like some smart people that know stuff I don't. I should sign.

Again, I'm not even saying they are wrong.

Edited October 7, 2020 by SwampD

[nfreeman]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

Freeman, to use your words, that was extremely obnoxious.

 

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

I was just about to post the same thing.

You guys are right.  I deleted it.

[PerreaultForever]

I had hernia surgery yesterday and I just have to say the hospitals up here are so on top of this thing. All the protocols used, all the sanitizing, distancing, masks. Just amazing to see it all up close and personal. The nurses running short staffed and over worked but doing a fabulous job. I am smitten with my free Canadian healthcare. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

4 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I had hernia surgery yesterday and I just have to say the hospitals up here are so on top of this thing. All the protocols used, all the sanitizing, distancing, masks. Just amazing to see it all up close and personal. The nurses running short staffed and over worked but doing a fabulous job. I am smitten with my free Canadian healthcare. 

Free ?????

Glad you are doing well.  Take care.

[PerreaultForever]

well, you know it's paid for by taxes and such but you don't get a big bill when they wheel you out. No worries after and such. 

[atoq]

On 10/6/2020 at 8:48 PM, SwampD said:

On 10/6/2020 at 6:27 PM, nfreeman said:

9th bolded -- again, this isn't presented as a scientific study.  Your (and, to be fair, others') insistence on criticizing it as such is like criticizing an apple for not being an orange, and likely derives from, ironically enough, your cognitive assumptions about what is best for society.

No offense, but seems a bit disingenuous.

The first line of the webpage, "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists,…" (FTR, wtf is a public health scientist?)

It is absolutely disingenuous. Besides the good points made by @SwampD about the the webpage, let's look to how @nfreeman himself how described the declaration:

On 10/6/2020 at 10:52 AM, nfreeman said:

I think the main takeaway from the declaration is that these epidemiologists/HC professionals believe, as a scientific matter, that a broad reopening will have substantially fewer destructive consequences than a broad lockdown.

He claimed this was a scientific take. When it was pointed out there is little to no science in the article, he resorted to name-calling and personal attacks.

@nfreeman you are right, I am a child. And in my first year of middle school I learned that if you want to make a scientific argument, you should provide some data and citations. If you take away the high profile university titles and the number of 'public health scientists', there is no science provided nor productive ideas proposed. It's of course possible that the premise of the declaration is correct or partially correct, but these kinds of decisions should be data-driven because this is matter of life and death for a significant number of people, which was really my point in responding.

Let's look at another recent general non-technical statement by the scientific community, so that we can compare how information is presented: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

This article helps compare global COVID impacts by providing some statistics (with respected sources) like the following:

Quote

According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering,¹ the United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in much larger countries, such as China. The death rate in this country is more than double that of Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lower-middle-income countries, such as Vietnam, by a factor of almost 2000.

There is also information on how various countries have adapted testing programs, which has proven to be an effective strategy to help reopen economies.

Quote

While the absolute numbers of tests have increased substantially [in the US], the more useful metric is the number of tests performed per infected person, a rate that puts us far down the international list, below such places as Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia, countries that cannot boast the biomedical infrastructure or the manufacturing capacity that we have.²

There is also a graph provided at the citation link:

As for @nfreeman saying I'm projecting my own cognitive assumptions about what is best for society, at no point have I made the argument that strict lock downs are absolutely necessary. I'm usually only drawn out from lurking when I see really bad science takes that I feel compelled to refute with hopes of an actual ensuing conversation.

Other parts of the world have enacted various strategies that helped dramatically reduce initial COVID infection numbers, followed by careful reopening strategies (a process made easier by more initial control of the virus) that have kept COVID rates substantially lower that in the US. However, I don't think there is currently any political will or capacity to do this in the US, as demonstrated by nearly every step taken in the pandemic response over the past 10 months (see NEJM link above). Even worse, the pandemic has now become another battle in the dumb American Culture Wars (intentionally so, by those who seek to mitigate criticism), where even non-invasive measures that can help vulnerable members of society are perceived as controversial. The shoddy science that surfaces here is part of that.

To the point others have made here, the Great Barrington Declaration is obviously focused on whether or not there should be state-mandated lockdown protocols, in their words "concerns about...impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies" (in the title), which makes it a discussion about 'Government responses to COVID', and therefore shouldn't be allowed within this thread. People on this board have been complaining about uneven moderation because mostly political arguments barely obscured behind shoddy science (like Taro's HCQ study and the nfreeman's GBD), have been allowed and even shared by moderators. Yet, reflection or criticism of how governments have handled COVID isn't allowed, even though the options we have today for reopening the economy are directly related to how well the crisis was managed over the past months. Also, if economic concerns are primary, there are a wide range of fiscal policies that can be enacted to help individuals and businesses deal with economic hardships without putting many people's health at risk. This is another entirely underwhelming response that probably can't be mentioned here.

 

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, atoq said:

It is absolutely disingenuous. Besides the good points made by @SwampD about the the webpage, let's look to how @nfreeman himself how described the declaration:

He claimed this was a scientific take. When it was pointed out there is little to no science in the article, he resorted to name-calling and personal attacks.

@nfreeman you are right, I am a child. And in my first year of middle school I learned that if you want to make a scientific argument, you should provide some data and citations. If you take away the high profile university titles and the number of 'public health scientists', there is no science provided nor productive ideas proposed. It's of course possible that the premise of the declaration is correct or partially correct, but these kinds of decisions should be data-driven because this is matter of life and death for a significant number of people, which was really my point in responding.

Let's look at another recent general non-technical statement by the scientific community, so that we can compare how information is presented: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

This article helps compare global COVID impacts by providing some statistics (with respected sources) like the following:

There is also information on how various countries have adapted testing programs, which has proven to be an effective strategy to help reopen economies.

There is also a graph provided at the citation link:

As for @nfreeman saying I'm projecting my own cognitive assumptions about what is best for society, at no point have I made the argument that strict lock downs are absolutely necessary. I'm usually only drawn out from lurking when I see really bad science takes that I feel compelled to refute with hopes of an actual ensuing conversation.

Other parts of the world have enacted various strategies that helped dramatically reduce initial COVID infection numbers, followed by careful reopening strategies (a process made easier by more initial control of the virus) that have kept COVID rates substantially lower that in the US. However, I don't think there is currently any political will or capacity to do this in the US, as demonstrated by nearly every step taken in the pandemic response over the past 10 months (see NEJM link above). Even worse, the pandemic has now become another battle in the dumb American Culture Wars (intentionally so, by those who seek to mitigate criticism), where even non-invasive measures that can help vulnerable members of society are perceived as controversial. The shoddy science that surfaces here is part of that.

To the point others have made here, the Great Barrington Declaration is obviously focused on whether or not there should be state-mandated lockdown protocols, in their words "concerns about...impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies" (in the title), which makes it a discussion about 'Government responses to COVID', and therefore shouldn't be allowed within this thread. People on this board have been complaining about uneven moderation because mostly political arguments barely obscured behind shoddy science (like Taro's HCQ study and the nfreeman's GBD), have been allowed and even shared by moderators. Yet, reflection or criticism of how governments have handled COVID isn't allowed, even though the options we have today for reopening the economy are directly related to how well the crisis was managed over the past months. Also, if economic concerns are primary, there are a wide range of fiscal policies that can be enacted to help individuals and businesses deal with economic hardships without putting many people's health at risk. This is another entirely underwhelming response that probably can't be mentioned here.

 

[Stoner]

@Brawndo If a person is no longer contagious 10 days (or maybe 20, I've heard) after showing symptoms, why are visitations forbidden several weeks and sometimes even several months after someone has gotten sick? We've all heard the terrible stories of people having to die alone in hospital isolation. Or are you still contagious as long as you continue to show symptoms?

Edited October 9, 2020 by PASabreFan

[North Buffalo]

12 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

@Brawndo If a person is no longer contagious 10 days (or maybe 20, I've heard) after showing symptoms, why are visitations forbidden several weeks and sometimes even several months after someone has gotten sick? We've all heard the terrible stories of people having to die alone in hospital isolation. Or are you still contagious as long as you continue to show symptoms?

Most of it is because those pts lungs are so compromised any infection can kill them

[North Buffalo]

Also thos pts who lungs are compromised are often in icu with other covid pts and hospitals dont want to expose family

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Most of it is because those pts lungs are so compromised any infection can kill them

Sounds kinda like influenza. If I remember correctly when you look at the underlying numbers, a lot of people die from influenza related pneumonia. 

[North Buffalo]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Sounds kinda like influenza. If I remember correctly when you look at the underlying numbers, a lot of people die from influenza related pneumonia. 

Lot of secondary infections... also covid causes abnormal clotting so seeing lots of heart attacks, PEs and aneurysms 

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, North Buffalo said:

Most of it is because those pts lungs are so compromised any infection can kill them

If they're already at death's door though?

[North Buffalo]

55 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

If they're already at death's door though?

Yeh but usually others in icu with active covid

[SwampD]

Got my first Covid test today. Having a colonoscopy on Monday so I have to self quarantine until then.

Luckily, my local liquor store has free delivery on orders over $50. That’s child’s play. My cart has $50 in it just by logging in.

Order sent.

Edited October 15, 2020 by SwampD

[miles]

My wife decided that its ok to go to a charity event this coming weekend. 

I told that we have been trying very hard to be safe and only be around others when necessary, and things are still not good out there. surprisingly she asked her family their opinion and they agreed with me. But i guess she has had enough of being safe

Boy, will i be pissed if she brings covid home from this stupid event. Like really pissed, like dont ask me for anything because your sick, pissed. Like, im going to a hotel for the next 2 weeks pissed

Maybe im overreacting but i dont care

Edited October 15, 2020 by miles

[LGR4GM]

On 10/6/2020 at 10:50 AM, nfreeman said:

https://gbdeclaration.org/
 

This is a statement authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, and co-signed by 1400 other public health scientists and 1600 other medical practitioners.

 

You brought this in. Therefore, you have opened this area up for scrutiny and debate on the topic. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/health/coronavirus-great-barrington.html?referringSource=articleShare&fbclid=IwAR3bk-5r0D5wdnJFsa_YNiO1r_cQfo3zJEfDZxR0L4gEx6aJE6LJ-D5sXWY

Quote

The declaration grew out of a gathering hosted in Great Barrington, Mass., by the American Institute for Economic Research, a think tank dedicated to free-market principles that partners with the Charles Koch Institute, founded by the billionaire industrialist to provide support to libertarian-leaning causes and organizations.

On Oct. 5, the day after the declaration was made public, the three authors — Dr. Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard — arrived in Washington at the invitation of Dr. Atlas to present their plan to a small but powerful audience: the health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II.

Among scientists, too, there is near-universal agreement that lockdowns are harmful. Even Dr. Fauci has suggested that another national lockdown must be instituted only as a last resort.

But mostly, scientific disagreement centers on whether lockdowns are a necessary move when other strategies to contain the virus have not even been put in place, or have failed.

 

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

Quote

Alarmed and angry, 80 experts on Wednesday published a manifesto of their own, the John Snow Memorandum (named after a legendary epidemiologist), saying that the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions that put them at high risk from severe Covid-19 — at least one-third of U.S. citizens, by most estimates — and result in perhaps a half-million deaths.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by LGR4GM