Humanity is not a herd – Bella Caledonia

This policy has not been pursued by most governments around the world. An unspecified subtext of the Declaration to achieve these objectives implicitly fully opens the economy and “usually” without very explicit mention or provision of the economy in the Declaration. It’s amazing to be back in business, work, and activity A statement of AIER’s basic principles that sponsors the Declaration.

The Great Barrington Declaration has been challenged by mainstream scientific and medical opinions. C4 News interviewed Professor Devi Sridhar, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and Dean of the Faculty of Global Public Health, about the proposal. Her answer was that she disagreed with the declaration and did not consider it “scientific” or “accurate.” .. Matt Fry, who conducted this interview with Professor Sridar, continued to interview Professor Livermore, a supporter of the Declaration. Who mentioned the economy? The problem was Professor Livermore’s response to Matt Fry’s impressive and compelling observations. “… The question is, is this certainly the path to” herd immunity “paved with too many corpses? Livermore hesitated and said he was not “convinced” of the current policy. Lack of belief is one thing, but to persuade the general public, we need more than subjective beliefs and drastic declarations.

I’m not an epidemiologist, but like everyone else, I’m influenced by such policies. I need to see the entity, not the rhetoric. The Declaration does not provide detailed evidence or disseminate comprehensive research. It’s a policy statement. There are three problems. First, if the general view of epidemiology is wrong, all of us will suffer even more difficulties in the struggle to save lives, but the Great Barrington paper was adopted, and then, as far as I know, the results are wrong. What you can see if it turns out to be completely devastating to human life. After the first wave of coronavirus, there were overkills of about 65,000 in the UK. This is an excess of the five-year average of all UK deaths in the relevant month, including all influenza, cancer and more. There is a real balance of risk. This is what it means to face a true pandemic in our lives.

Second, Great Barrington’s paper presents a dichotomy as a choice between the economy and the health of the vulnerable or the elderly. This is a false distinction. As a country that has best addressed this issue (mainly in the Far East like Taiwan, not a neoliberal opportunist exercise of rent seeking like Westminster, a functional and highly efficient public health test And using a tracing system), showing; the success of both public health and the economy is the rigor of current general principles as the only viable way to ensure that a thriving economy can be restored in time. It seems to depend on the application. Problems in the UK that make this particularly difficult are the termination of furloughs and the lack of adequate financial support. Combine with a purposeful test and trace system. Tests and traces should never have been privatized. Local public health services have always been the only reliable and proven solution. For example, the best way to ensure that everyone is quarantined after a positive test is an immediate, lucrative, urgent financial package of publicly funded support for individuals / family members through 7 or 14 days of quarantine. Is to make sure that there is. .. Nationally, it is cheaper than the alternative.

Third, Great Barrington’s paper presents the concept of “protecting vulnerabilities” as if this were feasible in a coronavirus-filled society. They explain how this should be done only in very general terms, without elucidating the impact of the results of their own proposals on these aspirations: “As an example, nursing homes are acquired immunity. Should use staff with. ” What if you don’t have enough staff to meet the criteria? And what is the proof that everyone has definitely gained “immunity” from COVID-19? What is the timescale to achieve this result? If it works, how do you reach this result without disaster before it works? The declaration seems to assume that it achieved its goal before it began.

The result of separating vulnerable people from society is simply eliminating them. Their fate is the fate of the care facility when the pandemic began. They are separated to be forgotten. “Protection” is just another word for exclusion. Opportunity to leave people to their destiny. We have a long history of neglecting the people who are cared for in this country. Beyond generations. We have been “discovered” many times. No more looking back by Charles Dickens. Need to cite a tragedy that has affected the vulnerable, children, or the elderly, who have been exposed to the tragic story of being abused in Britain for decades? We produce reports and manual work, but in the UK we have never shown the minimum ability or even a true desire to learn anything. I use a very long spoon and support such a claim for special protection.

Over time, those “protected” are treated as stimulants, after which they become Paria. Untouchable. Great Barrington’s dissertation is not a defense of individual liberty, but rather a promotion of tyranny. Consciously, or perhaps unconsciously. The road to hell offers a paradigm. The freedom of the vulnerable depends on the close support of young, healthy and capable people. Otherwise, the vulnerabilities are left to their own devices and they have nothing.

Mankind is not a flock. That is the first principle of freedom.