I raised a dozen points about GBD to you, twice. You ignored every single one.
Told you, waste of time. I’m done with you. Gave you both the benefit if the doubt for far too long. Crack on, have a good night.
The authors—Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard, Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine and economics at Stanford—said that because older people were 1000 times more likely to die of covid-19 than younger people, an “age stratified” approach could allow resources to be focused on older and high risk patients, while allowing younger and healthier people to attend school and keep businesses open.
They argue that focused protection would reduce the “collateral harms” of lockdown, including deaths from suicides, reduced childhood immunization, and increases in domestic violence.
Gupta said that widespread starvation was another serious consequence of lockdowns—a concern underscored by a report from the charity Oxfam,
2 which found that border closures, curfews, and travel restrictions had caused breaks in the food supply that threatened to cause 12 000 deaths a day worldwide, exceeding the 10 000 deaths a day recorded from covid-19 in April.
3
Kulldorff said that, with focused protection, low risk people could remain active and that this would help communities reach herd immunity sooner, which could shorten the duration and harms of lockdowns.
4 Herd immunity, he said at a meeting in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, “is not a strategy—but a biological reality that will arrive sooner or later, either naturally or through a vaccine, or both.”
He defended the Swedish approach, saying that “schools were never closed for children aged 1 to 15, with zero covid-19 deaths . . .and the United States has now passed Sweden in terms of deaths per million inhabitants, despite Sweden having an older, more high risk population.”
5
Also...
However, Stefan Baral, a physician epidemiologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, said he was concerned that the meeting had taken place. Baral explained that, while he generally agreed that lockdowns were causing serious harms, he had declined to sign the declaration because it did not address the concrete steps needed to assist the most vulnerable people.
Baral told
The BMJ that three steps must accompany any loosening of restrictions: firstly, the removal of any barriers to accessing healthcare; secondly, paid leave for people affected by covid-19; and lastly, housing support for such people in multigenerational households.
“Sweden instituted paid leave from day 1,” he said. “You can call in sick and know that you are going to be able to eat that night. In the US, if you call in sick, you and your family may not eat.”
Bhattacharya, one of the authors, said that he welcomed such criticisms, as he hoped that the declaration would be just the beginning of an important dialogue about the benefits, and the harms, of public health interventions.
Would you look at that, one of the authors of the declaration welcomes criticisms and isn't blinkered. But yes 3 scientists from 3 of the most prestigious universities in the world are definitely wrong.
Did you even bother reading the full declaration or just the bits the media picked out about herd immunity?
Care homes should have frequent testing of staff, residents and any visitors. Staff rotation should be kept to a minimum.
People of retirement age should have shopping and other essentials delivered to their homes and should only meet family members outside instead of inside where possible.
Simple hygiene measures should be practiced such as washing hands and staying at home when poorly by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.
Read the declaration and look at the credentials of those who have signed up so far at the bottom of the page. If it's ok with you I'll take their word for it over yours, they've a bit more medical and scientific experience than anybody else on this message board.
