Great Barrington Declaration

[gwb-trading]

So you're saying the doctors who signed this are not credited? Can I pick two or three from the list and we can start there?

Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

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.

Lets just start with these folks. I'm open to reading your discrediting of them with your professional knowledge that shows where they are off. I think Stanford, Oxford and Yale might be a bit more expensive in rent than apartments over Pizza joints, but I could be mistaken.

And just for posterity, permit me to point out the main paragraph in the declaration you are claiming to be garbage, so you can - if possible - tell us what about it is garbage.

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.
​

It is more interesting to look at the many times these 30 scientists have appeared on right-wing media outlets and articles driving their no-lockdow political narrative. These characters are political advocates as a primary profession rather than scientists.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a fine example - " he co-authored a Wall Street Journal opinion column suggesting the new coronavirus may not be as deadly as many believe. The following month, he co-authored a Stanford study that indicated the virus was far more prevalent than presumed and as a result, the death rate far lower.

That pre-peer-review study — which was later revised — drew withering criticism and even prompted Stanford to review the team’s work, which Bhattacharya said he was confident would be vindicated."

Other medical facility members at Stanford are demanding he be removed from the staff.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Instead of focusing on partisan politics

So the majority of top scientists in the field are engaging in partisan politics? Who knew!

 

[gwb-trading]

I tend to agree with the thrust of this declaration, while admitting I'd have to see the data from those societies that do and those that don't. The declaration does state that masks remain very important. Lockdowns probably keep their utility for local breakout instances, but not so much globally. Rents and loans are being deferred, not forgiven. Insurance premiums are not falling (that I can see). With the new labor surplus, wages are sure to fall, and the recent strike actions which were reaching historical highs will subside. In the end the rich, I mean the rentiers, will once again pick up more and the best pieces.

Keep in mind that all the advocates for no lockdowns -- also oppose mask and any other mitigation measure to protect people from the virus. They only advocate that we should lock the old people up and let everyone else go about life as if COVID-19 does not exist.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Keep in mind that all the advocates for no lockdowns -- also oppose mask and any other mitigation measure to protect people from the virus. They only advocate that we should lock the old people up and let everyone else go about life as if COVID-19 does not exist.

But not this one.

 

[jem]

you and you the end of the world crazies didn't like their numbers... at the time.
Now... it looks like were far closer to reality than your nut case buddies.

turns out their IFR of .33 in Santa Clara was likely spot on.

You and your crazy nut bags like Fauci were pissed because you were telling us about 4 to 6 percent death rates....

And don't give us your bullshit about CFR vs IFR.
you and Fauci were dead wrong which ever number you look at.
Although there are articles showing that Fauci screwed up IFR and CFRs.


https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...ody-study-revised-Stanford-death-15263047.php


After the first version of the study was published, a number of experts criticized the aggressive weighting system as well as its methodology. The adjustments still yield a near-doubling of the unweighted antibody prevalence, but are clearly on the low-end of the researchers' initial estimates.

Santa Clara County had just 1,000 confirmed cases of the virus when the study was conducted, which leads researchers to believe there were actually 54,000 infections at this time. The researchers use a 19-day lag from infection to death, and when using the 94 deaths in the county reported on April 22, are able calculate a "true fatality rate" of .17 percent. This is on the higher end of their initial estimate of .1 to .2 percent.

Immediately after the initial version of the study was released, Dr. George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at UCSF, highlighted the fact that the antibody test the researchers used was not FDA-approved, as very few antibody tests received approval in early April. Rutherford was skeptical of the study's weights, and believed onlookers should just look at the raw antibody prevalence percentage of 1.5 percent.

"At end of day, the percent positive for antibodies was 1.5 percent," he said. "I don’t know what to make of the original sample, I don't know what to make of their adjustments for laboratory tests or the general population weight. I walk away thinking they found 1.5 percent of people have antibodies. They're smart as whips but felt crushed to get this out quickly, which is understandable."

Rutherford added that a 1.5 percent antibody prevalence is in line with what he would have expected.

"In the medical community, the thought is that one percent of people have been exposed in the Bay Area, and it's a little higher in Santa Clara County," he said.

An unweighted antibody prevalence of 1.5 percent translates to a total of 28,920 residents in the county that have been infected. This high figure suggests infections are underreported by a factor of 30, and the true fatality rate in Santa Clara County is .33 percent — a figure almost identical to the "true" mortality rate calculated following antibody tests in a hard-hit German town. A .33 mortality rate is still nothing to sniff at, however, as it is three times deadlier than the seasonal flu (with a mortality rate of .1) and can be significantly higher for elderly residents and individuals with underlying conditions.

It is more interesting to look at the many times these 30 scientists have appeared on right-wing media outlets and articles driving their no-lockdow political narrative. These characters are political advocates as a primary profession rather than scientists.

Dr. Jay is a fine example - " he co-authored a Wall Street Journal opinion column suggesting the new coronavirus may not be as deadly as many believe. The following month, he co-authored a Stanford study that indicated the virus was far more prevalent than presumed and as a result, the death rate far lower.

That pre-peer-review study — which was later revised — drew withering criticism and even prompted Stanford to review the team’s work, which Bhattacharya said he was confident would be vindicated."

Other medical facility members at Stanford are demanding he be removed from the staff.

 

[gwb-trading]

you and you the end of the world crazies didn't like their numbers...
Now... it looks like were far closer to reality than your nut case buddies.

turns out their .33 in Santa Clara was like spot on.
You and your crazy nut bags like Fauci were pissed because you were telling us about 4 to 6 percent death rates....

And don't give us your bullshit about CFR vs IFR.
you and Fauci were dead wrong... back then.


a...

https://www.sfgate.com/news/editors...ody-study-revised-Stanford-death-15263047.php


After the first version of the study was published, a number of experts criticized the aggressive weighting system as well as its methodology. The adjustments still yield a near-doubling of the unweighted antibody prevalence, but are clearly on the low-end of the researchers' initial estimates.

Santa Clara County had just 1,000 confirmed cases of the virus when the study was conducted, which leads researchers to believe there were actually 54,000 infections at this time. The researchers use a 19-day lag from infection to death, and when using the 94 deaths in the county reported on April 22, are able calculate a "true fatality rate" of .17 percent. This is on the higher end of their initial estimate of .1 to .2 percent.

Immediately after the initial version of the study was released, Dr. George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at UCSF, highlighted the fact that the antibody test the researchers used was not FDA-approved, as very few antibody tests received approval in early April. Rutherford was skeptical of the study's weights, and believed onlookers should just look at the raw antibody prevalence percentage of 1.5 percent.

"At end of day, the percent positive for antibodies was 1.5 percent," he said. "I don’t know what to make of the original sample, I don't know what to make of their adjustments for laboratory tests or the general population weight. I walk away thinking they found 1.5 percent of people have antibodies. They're smart as whips but felt crushed to get this out quickly, which is understandable."

Rutherford added that a 1.5 percent antibody prevalence is in line with what he would have expected.

"In the medical community, the thought is that one percent of people have been exposed in the Bay Area, and it's a little higher in Santa Clara County," he said.

An unweighted antibody prevalence of 1.5 percent translates to a total of 28,920 residents in the county that have been infected. This high figure suggests infections are underreported by a factor of 30, and the true fatality rate in Santa Clara County is .33 percent — a figure almost identical to the "true" mortality rate calculated following antibody tests in a hard-hit German town. A .33 mortality rate is still nothing to sniff at, however, as it is three times deadlier than the seasonal flu (with a mortality rate of .1) and can be significantly higher for elderly residents and individuals with underlying conditions.

The seasonal flu has an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of 0.025%
The seasonal flu has a CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of 0.1%

The provided IFR of COVID at 0.33% is 13 times the IFR of the seasonal flu.

Please stop comparing apples and oranges when making IFR and CFR comparisons with the seasonal flu and COVID.

 

[jem]

This is not me.
I am in favor of social distancing.
I practice it all the time...

Keep in mind that all the advocates for no lockdowns -- also oppose mask and any other mitigation measure to protect people from the virus. They only advocate that we should lock the old people up and let everyone else go about life as if COVID-19 does not exist.

 

[jem]

I knew you would pull that bullshit.
We are talking about Covid's IFR in Santa Clara vs your idea at the time that Covid had a 4 to 6 CFR.

The seasonal flu has an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of 0.025%
The seasonal flu has a CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of 0.1%

The provided IFR of COVID at 0.33% is 13 times the IFR of the seasonal flu.

Please stop comparing apples and oranges when making IFR and CFR comparisons with the seasonal flu and COVID.

 

[gwb-trading]

I knew you would pull that bullshit.
Its you excuse for being dead ass wrong about the fatality rate being 4 to 6 percent.

That is why you and buddies could not stand the Stanford numbers at the time.

Turns out they were far more accurate.

The current global CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of COVID is 3%. CFR is a proven number an the number that is used for scientific research since the number of cases is known.

IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is nothing more than an estimate since the number of infections is merely an estimate and not known.

 

[jem]

1. back on April 19th, you were touting "5.8 percent actual death rate. " based on WHO models. You apparently were confused by IFR and CFR... back then.

2. The Stanford guys showed you that the real number in Santa Clara was closer to an IFR of .33.


Which of course morons like you and Fauci and and the lockdown losers could not accept.

The rate is coming down? Where do you get this fantasy from?

Let's take a look at the actual world-wide death rate.

As of April 19th - 163,663 deaths / 2,373, 096 cases = a 6.89% death rate known as case fatality rate (CFR)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The predicted WHO death rate is currently set at 5.8% based on it convergence modeling of the actual death rate.

How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#correct

The current global CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of COVID is 3%. CFR is a proven number an the number that is used for scientific research since the number of cases is known.

IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is nothing more than an estimate since the number of infections is merely an estimate and not known.