mNo edit summary Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|2020 open letter addressing the response to the COVID-19 epidemic}} |
{{short description|2020 open letter addressing the response to the COVID-19 epidemic}} |
||
[[File:Great Barrington Declaration.pdf|thumb|right|150px|The Great Barrington Declaration]] |
[[File:Great Barrington Declaration.pdf|thumb|right|150px|The Great Barrington Declaration]] |
||
The '''Great Barrington Declaration''' is a proposal, written and signed at the [[American Institute for Economic Research]]<ref name=AEIR>{{cite web |url=https://www.aier.org/article/aier-hosts-top-epidemiologists-authors-of-the-great-barrington-declaration/ |title=AIER Hosts Top Epidemiologists, Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration |last= |first= |date=5 October 2020 |website= |publisher=American Institute for Economic Research |access-date=10 October 2020 |quote=}}</ref> in [[Great Barrington, Massachusetts]] on 4 October 2020 addressing the response to the [[Coronavirus disease 2019|COVID-19]] epidemic.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sample|first=Ian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/why-herd-immunity-strategy-is-regarded-as-fringe-viewpoint|title=Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint|work=The Guardian|date=7 October 2020|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Kirkey|first=Sharon|url=https://nationalpost.com/health/new-declaration-calls-for-forced-protection-to-achieve-covid-19-herd-immunity-critics-say-it-would-be-deadly|title=New declaration calls for 'focused protection' to achieve COVID-19 herd immunity. Critics say it would be deadly|work=National Post|location=Toronto, Canada|date=9 October 2020|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref> The declaration |
The '''Great Barrington Declaration''' is a proposal, written and signed at the [[American Institute for Economic Research]]<ref name=AEIR>{{cite web |url=https://www.aier.org/article/aier-hosts-top-epidemiologists-authors-of-the-great-barrington-declaration/ |title=AIER Hosts Top Epidemiologists, Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration |last= |first= |date=5 October 2020 |website= |publisher=American Institute for Economic Research |access-date=10 October 2020 |quote=}}</ref> in [[Great Barrington, Massachusetts]] on 4 October 2020, addressing the response to the [[Coronavirus disease 2019|COVID-19]] epidemic.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sample|first=Ian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/why-herd-immunity-strategy-is-regarded-as-fringe-viewpoint|title=Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint|work=The Guardian|date=7 October 2020|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Kirkey|first=Sharon|url=https://nationalpost.com/health/new-declaration-calls-for-forced-protection-to-achieve-covid-19-herd-immunity-critics-say-it-would-be-deadly|title=New declaration calls for 'focused protection' to achieve COVID-19 herd immunity. Critics say it would be deadly|work=National Post|location=Toronto, Canada|date=9 October 2020|access-date=10 October 2020}}</ref> The declaration is highly critical of current government strategies that aim to us elockdoens as primary mitigation strategies against the virus. The World Health Organization has also urged governments to resist using lockdown in this manner, but such urgings have to date fallen on mostly fesf ears. The declaration goes further, to outline an alternate approach that the authors advocate for, which includes measures to prioritize protection of at risk and vulnerable populations, while allowing non-vulnrrable populations to go back to work and daily life. The declaration proposes to identify vulnerable populations based on statistical levels of risk, and to strictly protect these populations, as opposed to initiating blanket lockdowns that have widely disrupted social, economic and personal growth.<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/06/scientists-call-for-herd-immunity-covid-strategy-for-young |title=Scientists call for herd immunity Covid strategy for young |last=Sample|first=Ian |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=6 October 2020 |access-date=6 October 2020}}</ref><ref name="SGTelegraph">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/07/sunetra-gupta-oped-herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus-normal/|title=Life can go back to normal if we make it our common goal to achieve herd immunity|last=Gupta|first=Sunetra |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=7 October 2020|access-date=9 October 2020}}</ref><!-- DT article published on a Wednesday -->IMore specifically, the decl ration aasserts thatlockdownshand other restrictionscan haveseveret nd wide-ranging aadverseeaffects on physica, economic and mentallwell-beingh, manifesting an especial burden for the underprivileged, and that the focus should instead be on "shielding" those most at risk, with fewer restrictions placed on the remainder of the population in order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold."<ref name="Guardian"/> |
||
The declaration was authored by [[Sunetra Gupta]] of the [[University of Oxford]], Jay Bhattacharya of [[Stanford University]], and Martin Kulldorff of [[Harvard University]]. Cosignatories, across disciplines ranging from [[epidemiology]], [[biostatistics]], and public health, through psychiatry and [[self-harm]], to finance and [[human geography]], include {{ill|Sucharit Bhakdi|de}}, [[Angus Dalgleish]], [[Mike Hulme]], [[Michael Levitt]], [[Jonas F. Ludvigsson|Jonas Ludvigsson]], [[Gülnur Muradoğlu|Yaz Gülnur Muradoğlu]], David Katz, and [[Karol Sikora]].<ref name=AEIR/> |
The declaration was authored by [[Sunetra Gupta]] of the [[University of Oxford]], Jay Bhattacharya of [[Stanford University]], and Martin Kulldorff of [[Harvard University]]. Cosignatories, across disciplines ranging from [[epidemiology]], [[biostatistics]], and public health, through psychiatry and [[self-harm]], to finance and [[human geography]], include {{ill|Sucharit Bhakdi|de}}, [[Angus Dalgleish]], [[Mike Hulme]], [[Michael Levitt]], [[Jonas F. Ludvigsson|Jonas Ludvigsson]], [[Gülnur Muradoğlu|Yaz Gülnur Muradoğlu]], David Katz, and [[Karol Sikora]].<ref name=AEIR/> |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[[File:American Institute for Economic Research - Great Barrington Declaration (Kulldorff-Gupta-Bhattacharya).jpg|thumb|The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration at the American Institute for Economic Research. (L–R) Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya]] |
[[File:American Institute for Economic Research - Great Barrington Declaration (Kulldorff-Gupta-Bhattacharya).jpg|thumb|The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration at the American Institute for Economic Research. (L–R) Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya]] |
||
{{Undue weight section|date=October 2020}} |
{{Undue weight section|date=October 2020}} |
||
Responses to the declaration have been swift and wide-ranging. By Oct 10th, over 200,000 signatories had lent their name to the cause, including almost 25,000 self-proclaimed medical or scientific professionals. While some doubt has been cast on the veracity of each and every one of these signatories (see below), there is no reason to anticipate widespread misuse or misrepresentation. Thus, considerable support for the declaration suggests widespread frustration over current governmental policies that priorities lockdowns and closures. The world health organization recently urged governments not to use lockdowns as a primary mitigation strategy against the virus, thus coinciding with a major focus of the declaration. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Harvard University professor of epidemiology William Hanage criticized the logic of the declaration's signatories "After pointing out, correctly, the indirect damage caused by the pandemic, they respond that the answer is to increase the direct damage caused by it" and attacked the feasibility of the idea of "Focused Protection" for those vulnerable to severe infection, saying that "stating that you can keep the virus out of places by testing at a time when the [[White House]] has [[White House COVID-19 outbreak|an apparently ongoing outbreak]] should illustrate how likely that is".<ref name="Guardian" /> Hanage cautioned that uncontrolled infections among the young run the risk of long-term medical effects of the disease.<ref name="Guardian" /> [[Gregg Gonsalves]], epidemiologist at [[Yale University]] described the strategy proposed by the declaration as "culling the herd of the sick and disabled" calling it "grotesque".<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts">{{Cite news|date=9 October 2020|title=Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'|work=[[The Guardian]]|agency=[[PA Media]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid|access-date=9 October 2020}}</ref> Arguing nearly half the population is considered to have underlying risk factors for the infection, he advocated for the prevailing quarantine strategy |
||
⚫ | The [[Francis Crick Institute]]'s group leader of the cell biology of infection laboratory, Rupert Beale, said herd immunity is "very unlikely" to be built up before a [[COVID-19 vaccine]] is generally implemented.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|title=Coronavirus: Top scientists call for herd immunity approach - as government's 'soft touch' criticised|url=https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597|access-date=2020-10-10|website=Sky News|language=en}}</ref> Of the Great Barrington Declaration he said the "declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up 'herd immunity' in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing 'herd immunity' is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine."<ref name=":3" /> |
||
⚫ | Others have raised doubts as to whether the posited accelerated arrival at herd immunity is a possibility, together with claims that the approach paid insufficient attention to the potential effects of so-called "[[Long Covid]]".<ref>{{cite news|last=Reynolds|first=Matt|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide|title=There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity. There’s a lot of talk of scientists divided over Covid-19, but when you look at the evidence any so-called divide starts to evaporate|work=Wired|date=October 7, 2020|access-date=October 7, 2020}}</ref> Concerns about the declaration have been issued on behalf of the British [[Academy of Medical Sciences (United Kingdom)|Academy of Medical Sciences]] by its president, [[Robert Lechler]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lechler |first1=Professor Sir Robert |title=Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices {{!}} The Academy of Medical Sciences |url=https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/navigating-covid-19-through-the-volume-of-competing-voices |website=acmedsci.ac.uk |accessdate=10 October 2020}}</ref> [[Martin McKee]], professor of European public health at the [[London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine]], compared the declaration to "the messaging used to undermine public health policies on harmful substances, such as tobacco".<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last=Manthorpe|first=Rowland|date=2020-10-09|title=Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter|url=https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-dr-johnny-bananas-and-dr-person-fakename-among-medical-signatories-on-herd-immunity-open-letter-12099947|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-10|website=Sky News|language=en}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | Harvard University professor of epidemiology William Hanage criticized the logic of the declaration's signatories "After pointing out, correctly, the indirect damage caused by the pandemic, they respond that the answer is to increase the direct damage caused by it" and attacked the feasibility of the idea of "Focused Protection" for those vulnerable to severe infection, saying that "stating that you can keep the virus out of places by testing at a time when the [[White House]] has [[White House COVID-19 outbreak|an apparently ongoing outbreak]] should illustrate how likely that is".<ref name="Guardian" /> Hanage cautioned that uncontrolled infections among the young run the risk of long-term medical effects of the disease.<ref name="Guardian" /> [[Gregg Gonsalves]], epidemiologist at [[Yale University]] described the strategy proposed by the declaration as "culling the herd of the sick and disabled" calling it "grotesque".<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts">{{Cite news|date=9 October 2020|title=Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'|work=[[The Guardian]]|agency=[[PA Media]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid|access-date=9 October 2020}}</ref> Arguing nearly half the population is considered to have underlying risk factors for the infection, he advocated for the prevailing quarantine strategy,<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /> which itself remains highly nascent and minimally tested or empirically supported. |
||
⚫ | The [[Francis Crick Institute]]'s group leader of the cell biology of infection laboratory, Rupert Beale, said herd immunity is "very unlikely" to be built up before a [[COVID-19 vaccine]] is generally implemented.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|title=Coronavirus: Top scientists call for herd immunity approach - as government's 'soft touch' criticised|url=https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597|access-date=2020-10-10|website=Sky News|language=en}}</ref> However, no evidence in support of this position was provided. Of the Great Barrington Declaration he said the "declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up 'herd immunity' in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing 'herd immunity' is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine."<ref name=":3" /> This, Beale recommends continued lockdowns and closures, until a vaccine is produced, no matter how long it may take for that to occur. |
||
Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at [[University of Southampton]], said the declaration was "a very bad idea" and doubted if vulnerable people could avoid the virus if it was allowed to spread.<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /> He also said "Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health".<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /> Associate professor at the [[University of Leeds]] school of medicine Stephen Griffin criticized the declaration's flaws in ethics, logistics, and science, pointing out the risk of long-term effects of infection in even those less vulnerable to severe infection.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news|date=2020-10-07|title=Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386|access-date=2020-10-10}}</ref> Cellular biologist of the [[University of Reading]] questioned whether herd immunity was possible for [[SARS-CoV-2]]: "natural, lasting, protective immunity to the disease would be needed, and we don't know how effective or long-lasting people's post-infection immunity will be".<ref name=":2" /> |
Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at [[University of Southampton]], said the declaration was "a very bad idea" and doubted if vulnerable people could avoid the virus if it was allowed to spread.<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /> He also said "Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health".<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /> Associate professor at the [[University of Leeds]] school of medicine Stephen Griffin criticized the declaration's flaws in ethics, logistics, and science, pointing out the risk of long-term effects of infection in even those less vulnerable to severe infection.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news|date=2020-10-07|title=Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386|access-date=2020-10-10}}</ref> Cellular biologist of the [[University of Reading]] questioned whether herd immunity was possible for [[SARS-CoV-2]]: "natural, lasting, protective immunity to the disease would be needed, and we don't know how effective or long-lasting people's post-infection immunity will be".<ref name=":2" /> |
||
Other experts have noted that Sweden has employed a strategy very similar to that urged by the declaration, with overall highly successful results. Case and death rates were initially higher in Sweden than neighbouring countries, as may be expected of this strategy, but these rates have normalized, and in some cases even dropped below the rates of the UK, France, Spain and others. This pattern of short-term increases in cases/deaths, followed by longer-term stability is what the declaration predicts, and thus provides some support for the declarstions ideas. As evidence on both sides is thin, it may be difficult for governments or health professions to take the risk that "herd immunity" will work, however. |
|||
⚫ | On October 9, 2020 several media outlets reported that dozens of obviously bogus names were among the signatures of support for the declaration, including "Mr [[Bananarama|Banana Rama]]" and "Dr Johnny Fartpants."<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name="indy">{{cite news|author=Ng|first=Kate|date=9 October 2020|title=Coronavirus: 'Dr Person Fakename' and 'Harold Shipman' signatures on scientists' letter calling on government to embrace herd immunity|newspaper=The Independent|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-herd-immunity-great-barrington-declaration-scientists-signatures-fake-names-b912778.html|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref> More than 100 therapists, numerous homeopaths, physiotherapists, massage therapists, and other non-relevant people were found to be signatories, including a performer of [[Khoomei]] – a Mongolian style of [[overtone singing]] – described as a "therapeutic sound practitioner".<ref name=":0" /> |
||
⚫ | On October 9, 2020 several media outlets reported that dozens of obviously bogus names were among the signatures of support for the declaration, including "Mr [[Bananarama|Banana Rama]]" and "Dr Johnny Fartpants."<ref name="guardian-herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name="indy">{{cite news|author=Ng|first=Kate|date=9 October 2020|title=Coronavirus: 'Dr Person Fakename' and 'Harold Shipman' signatures on scientists' letter calling on government to embrace herd immunity|newspaper=The Independent|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-herd-immunity-great-barrington-declaration-scientists-signatures-fake-names-b912778.html|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref> More than 100 therapists, numerous homeopaths, physiotherapists, massage therapists, and other non-relevant people were found to be signatories, including a performer of [[Khoomei]] – a Mongolian style of [[overtone singing]] – described as a "therapeutic sound practitioner".<ref name=":0" /> That said, these are but a handful of the 200,000+ signatories, and are unlikely to signal widespread misuse or misrepresentation. |
||
A report in the American conservative magazine [[Washington Examiner|''Washington Examiner'']] reported on independent journalist [[Nafeez Ahmed]]'s attempt to expose the petition's weak verification process, which allowed "anyone to self-verify as a 'scientist' signatory"; Ahmed signed the petition by creating a bogus academic persona named "Mad Scientist" and called the declaration "a gigantic fraud".<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Miller|first=Andrew Mark|date=2020-10-09|title='Pro-lockdown' advocates 'submit hoax signatures' to an anti-lockdown declaration signed by thousands of medical experts|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pro-lockdown-advocates-submit-hoax-signatures-to-an-anti-lockdown-declaration-signed-by-thousands-of-medical-experts|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-10|website=Washington Examiner|language=en}}</ref> Ahmed told the ''Examiner'' that "it's simply impossible for the publishers of the declaration to know that it is supported by so-and-so 'thousands' of scientists – because it has set up an inherently opaque process that is beyond verification and is, of course, therefore, entirely unscientific". The petition's organizers indicated that "perhaps 250 total" hoax signatures had been discovered and removed from the site, and that Ahmed and others had been blocked from making future submissions.<ref name=":1" /> In response Jay Bhattacharya regretted that "some people have abused our trust by adding false names", which he supposed was "inevitable", but added that "given the volume of correspondence I have received from medical and public health professionals, as well as scientists and epidemiologists, it is clear that a very large number of experts resonate with the message of the declaration and its call for a focused protection policy".<ref name="indy" /> |
A report in the American conservative magazine [[Washington Examiner|''Washington Examiner'']] reported on independent journalist [[Nafeez Ahmed]]'s attempt to expose the petition's weak verification process, which allowed "anyone to self-verify as a 'scientist' signatory"; Ahmed signed the petition by creating a bogus academic persona named "Mad Scientist" and called the declaration "a gigantic fraud".<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Miller|first=Andrew Mark|date=2020-10-09|title='Pro-lockdown' advocates 'submit hoax signatures' to an anti-lockdown declaration signed by thousands of medical experts|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pro-lockdown-advocates-submit-hoax-signatures-to-an-anti-lockdown-declaration-signed-by-thousands-of-medical-experts|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-10|website=Washington Examiner|language=en}}</ref> Ahmed told the ''Examiner'' that "it's simply impossible for the publishers of the declaration to know that it is supported by so-and-so 'thousands' of scientists – because it has set up an inherently opaque process that is beyond verification and is, of course, therefore, entirely unscientific". The petition's organizers indicated that "perhaps 250 total" hoax signatures had been discovered and removed from the site, and that Ahmed and others had been blocked from making future submissions.<ref name=":1" /> In response Jay Bhattacharya regretted that "some people have abused our trust by adding false names", which he supposed was "inevitable", but added that "given the volume of correspondence I have received from medical and public health professionals, as well as scientists and epidemiologists, it is clear that a very large number of experts resonate with the message of the declaration and its call for a focused protection policy".<ref name="indy" /> |
Revision as of 03:35, 11 October 2020
The Great Barrington Declaration is a proposal, written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research[1] in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on 4 October 2020, addressing the response to the COVID-19 epidemic.[2][3] The declaration is highly critical of current government strategies that aim to us elockdoens as primary mitigation strategies against the virus. The World Health Organization has also urged governments to resist using lockdown in this manner, but such urgings have to date fallen on mostly fesf ears. The declaration goes further, to outline an alternate approach that the authors advocate for, which includes measures to prioritize protection of at risk and vulnerable populations, while allowing non-vulnrrable populations to go back to work and daily life. The declaration proposes to identify vulnerable populations based on statistical levels of risk, and to strictly protect these populations, as opposed to initiating blanket lockdowns that have widely disrupted social, economic and personal growth.[4][5]IMore specifically, the decl ration aasserts thatlockdownshand other restrictionscan haveseveret nd wide-ranging aadverseeaffects on physica, economic and mentallwell-beingh, manifesting an especial burden for the underprivileged, and that the focus should instead be on "shielding" those most at risk, with fewer restrictions placed on the remainder of the population in order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold."[4]
The declaration was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. Cosignatories, across disciplines ranging from epidemiology, biostatistics, and public health, through psychiatry and self-harm, to finance and human geography, include Sucharit Bhakdi, Angus Dalgleish, Mike Hulme, Michael Levitt, Jonas Ludvigsson, Yaz Gülnur Muradoğlu, David Katz, and Karol Sikora.[1]
Response
Responses to the declaration have been swift and wide-ranging. By Oct 10th, over 200,000 signatories had lent their name to the cause, including almost 25,000 self-proclaimed medical or scientific professionals. While some doubt has been cast on the veracity of each and every one of these signatories (see below), there is no reason to anticipate widespread misuse or misrepresentation. Thus, considerable support for the declaration suggests widespread frustration over current governmental policies that priorities lockdowns and closures. The world health organization recently urged governments not to use lockdowns as a primary mitigation strategy against the virus, thus coinciding with a major focus of the declaration.
Others have raised doubts as to whether the posited accelerated arrival at herd immunity is a possibility, together with claims that the approach paid insufficient attention to the potential effects of so-called "Long Covid".[6] Concerns about the declaration have been issued on behalf of the British Academy of Medical Sciences by its president, Robert Lechler.[7] Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, compared the declaration to "the messaging used to undermine public health policies on harmful substances, such as tobacco".[8]
Harvard University professor of epidemiology William Hanage criticized the logic of the declaration's signatories "After pointing out, correctly, the indirect damage caused by the pandemic, they respond that the answer is to increase the direct damage caused by it" and attacked the feasibility of the idea of "Focused Protection" for those vulnerable to severe infection, saying that "stating that you can keep the virus out of places by testing at a time when the White House has an apparently ongoing outbreak should illustrate how likely that is".[4] Hanage cautioned that uncontrolled infections among the young run the risk of long-term medical effects of the disease.[4] Gregg Gonsalves, epidemiologist at Yale University described the strategy proposed by the declaration as "culling the herd of the sick and disabled" calling it "grotesque".[9] Arguing nearly half the population is considered to have underlying risk factors for the infection, he advocated for the prevailing quarantine strategy,[9] which itself remains highly nascent and minimally tested or empirically supported.
The Francis Crick Institute's group leader of the cell biology of infection laboratory, Rupert Beale, said herd immunity is "very unlikely" to be built up before a COVID-19 vaccine is generally implemented.[10] However, no evidence in support of this position was provided. Of the Great Barrington Declaration he said the "declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up 'herd immunity' in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing 'herd immunity' is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine."[10] This, Beale recommends continued lockdowns and closures, until a vaccine is produced, no matter how long it may take for that to occur.
Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at University of Southampton, said the declaration was "a very bad idea" and doubted if vulnerable people could avoid the virus if it was allowed to spread.[9] He also said "Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health".[9] Associate professor at the University of Leeds school of medicine Stephen Griffin criticized the declaration's flaws in ethics, logistics, and science, pointing out the risk of long-term effects of infection in even those less vulnerable to severe infection.[11] Cellular biologist of the University of Reading questioned whether herd immunity was possible for SARS-CoV-2: "natural, lasting, protective immunity to the disease would be needed, and we don't know how effective or long-lasting people's post-infection immunity will be".[11]
Other experts have noted that Sweden has employed a strategy very similar to that urged by the declaration, with overall highly successful results. Case and death rates were initially higher in Sweden than neighbouring countries, as may be expected of this strategy, but these rates have normalized, and in some cases even dropped below the rates of the UK, France, Spain and others. This pattern of short-term increases in cases/deaths, followed by longer-term stability is what the declaration predicts, and thus provides some support for the declarstions ideas. As evidence on both sides is thin, it may be difficult for governments or health professions to take the risk that "herd immunity" will work, however.
On October 9, 2020 several media outlets reported that dozens of obviously bogus names were among the signatures of support for the declaration, including "Mr Banana Rama" and "Dr Johnny Fartpants."[9][8][12] More than 100 therapists, numerous homeopaths, physiotherapists, massage therapists, and other non-relevant people were found to be signatories, including a performer of Khoomei – a Mongolian style of overtone singing – described as a "therapeutic sound practitioner".[8] That said, these are but a handful of the 200,000+ signatories, and are unlikely to signal widespread misuse or misrepresentation.
A report in the American conservative magazine Washington Examiner reported on independent journalist Nafeez Ahmed's attempt to expose the petition's weak verification process, which allowed "anyone to self-verify as a 'scientist' signatory"; Ahmed signed the petition by creating a bogus academic persona named "Mad Scientist" and called the declaration "a gigantic fraud".[13] Ahmed told the Examiner that "it's simply impossible for the publishers of the declaration to know that it is supported by so-and-so 'thousands' of scientists – because it has set up an inherently opaque process that is beyond verification and is, of course, therefore, entirely unscientific". The petition's organizers indicated that "perhaps 250 total" hoax signatures had been discovered and removed from the site, and that Ahmed and others had been blocked from making future submissions.[13] In response Jay Bhattacharya regretted that "some people have abused our trust by adding false names", which he supposed was "inevitable", but added that "given the volume of correspondence I have received from medical and public health professionals, as well as scientists and epidemiologists, it is clear that a very large number of experts resonate with the message of the declaration and its call for a focused protection policy".[12]
References
- ^ a b "AIER Hosts Top Epidemiologists, Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration". American Institute for Economic Research. 5 October 2020. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
- ^ Sample, Ian (7 October 2020). "Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
- ^ Kirkey, Sharon (9 October 2020). "New declaration calls for 'focused protection' to achieve COVID-19 herd immunity. Critics say it would be deadly". National Post. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
- ^ a b c d Sample, Ian (6 October 2020). "Scientists call for herd immunity Covid strategy for young". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
- ^ Gupta, Sunetra (7 October 2020). "Life can go back to normal if we make it our common goal to achieve herd immunity". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
- ^ Reynolds, Matt (October 7, 2020). "There is no 'scientific divide' over herd immunity. There's a lot of talk of scientists divided over Covid-19, but when you look at the evidence any so-called divide starts to evaporate". Wired. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
- ^ Lechler, Professor Sir Robert. "Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices | The Academy of Medical Sciences". acmedsci.ac.uk. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
- ^ a b c Manthorpe, Rowland (2020-10-09). "Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter". Sky News. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b c d e "Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'". The Guardian. PA Media. 9 October 2020. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
- ^ a b "Coronavirus: Top scientists call for herd immunity approach - as government's 'soft touch' criticised". Sky News. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
- ^ a b "Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement". BBC News. 2020-10-07. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
- ^ a b Ng, Kate (9 October 2020). "Coronavirus: 'Dr Person Fakename' and 'Harold Shipman' signatures on scientists' letter calling on government to embrace herd immunity". The Independent.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b Miller, Andrew Mark (2020-10-09). "'Pro-lockdown' advocates 'submit hoax signatures' to an anti-lockdown declaration signed by thousands of medical experts". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)