tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:17 pm
BTW, the GBD was about protecting the most vulnerable in our society (you know, sorta like Cuomo did with NYS nursing homes
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
) while keeping the economy and schools open, not "herd immunity" per se. It was about balance.
Not correct. Direct quotes from the GBD below.
It really was a LOT about herd immunity and letting Covid rip pre-vaccine. Was also strongly anti-lockdown, especially in schools. Thing is, it was published in October 2020. So the vaccines were pretty imminent and lockdowns were already going away. Would have been much more impactful if it had been published earlier in the pandemic.
Collins and Fauci thoroughly disagreed with the GBD and said so:
Letting the coronavirus rip through the U.S. population unchecked to achieve so-called herd immunity would cause a lot of unnecessary deaths and the idea is “nonsense,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said. Fauci was asked about the “Great Barrington Declaration,” an online movement that favors herd immunity and was mentioned by a senior White House official on a call with reporters. Letting the coronavirus rip through the U.S. population unchecked to infect as many people as possible to achieve so-called herd immunity would cause a lot of unnecessary deaths and the idea is “nonsense” and “dangerous,” the nation’s top infectious disease expert said Thursday.
Saying what they thought about the GBD is Collins' and Fauci's actual job, right? So I really don't see what your problem is here. Honest disagreement, publicly aired in the marketplace of ideas.
GBD:
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach
herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach
herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching
herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to
live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
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 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.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying 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.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by: