The Great Barrington Declaration

If any sentient being has been in doubt as to which side virtually all the major media and social media companies are on, non-coverage of both the Hunter Biden laptop e-mails and the Great Barrington Declaration should be proof positive of which side they’ve taken. When presidential candidate Joe Biden tells the debate moderator (in this case, Chris Wallace of FOX News) that the story surrounding Hunter Biden’s $83,000-a-month payment on the board of directors of Burisima, a Ukrainian energy company, has been “debunked,” it sure gives “debunked” a brand-new meaning other than exposing the falseness of a belief, since exposure has yet to take place.

But, let’s get to the Great Barrington Declaration.

“As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists,” the public pronouncement begins, “we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.”

The Declaration goes on to “recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” and then outlines some of the damaging results of current lockdown policies, including “devastating effects on short and long-term public health… 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.”

The Declaration also suggests that “keeping students out of school is a grave injustice,” and that keeping such measures in place until a vaccine is available “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Another tidbit worth chewing over: “We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19,” it says, “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.

The signing doctors and scientists encourage “herd immunity,” along with opening up businesses of all kinds, sending children back to schools, and most importantly, taking additional measures to protect the most vulnerable as the central aim of the public health response to COVID-19.

The Declaration’s final paragraph says it all: “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying at home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

The Declaration was authored and signed on October 4, 2020 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts by: 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; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases: and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor medicine at Harvard University, a biostastician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infection disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

The Declaration had garnered support from over 10,000 other doctors and scientists and even Elon Musk.

Wow!

One would think that such a declaration, signed by leading health professionals from around the world, would at the very least set off a series of discussions debating the subject.

One would be wrong.

The Declaration was given short shrift by the same crowd that actively stifles any news of alleged Biden family corruption and other news that may negatively affect their candidate. The Declaration has been “Shadow Banned” by Google, censored by Reddit, and mocked by The Guardian, which chose to point out a couple dozen fake names on the now-over 15,000 signatories; fake, mainly because the online Declaration invites anyone to sign on, and some of those who’ve signed on have used phony (and sometimes funny) names.

A publication called Science-Based Medicine has compared Great Barrington Declaration supporters to “creationists,” “HIV/AIDS denialists,” “climate science deniers,” and has called the doctors “grifters.”

Much like the current (and the 2016) presidential campaign, there is apparently just one opinion (or candidate) one can take (or choose). Anything else – anything and everything – is obviously beyond the pale, not worthy of consideration, evil, reprehensible, and… just fill in the blank.

Personally, I’m pretty much in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration, Elon Musk, and President Trump’s Covid Health Adviser, Dr. Scott Atlas, but I don’t feel those who disagree with that sentiment are evil, out to destroy the planet, or anti-science flat-earthers.

On that point, shouldn’t the efficacy of current COVID-19 strategies be at least a topic of discussion, rather than, as it now seems, a cause for charges of apostasy or worse?

Just asking.