COVID-19: Great Barrington Declaration Demands Intensive Protection

Great Barrington, Massachusetts — The Great Barrington Declaration, which provides an alternative COVID-19 national and global strategy, was written by professors at Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford University on October 4, and was released to the public on October 5. It was. By letting young, low-risk people continue their lives while protecting older people with weakened immunity.

The Declaration was written by Dr. Jay Battacharia, Dr. Snetra Gupta, and Dr. Martin Kurdorf.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and an epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and assessing vaccine safety.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta is a professor at Oxford University and an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focused on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

The Declaration was signed by more than 40 other medical and public health scientists and practitioners worldwide.

“As immunity grows into the population, the risk of transmission to all, including vulnerable, decreases,” the author of the declaration writes. “We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity, that is, when new infection rates stabilize, and this can be supported by vaccines (although it depends on it). Therefore, our goal is to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. “

Who started the declaration?

Dr. Kurdoff invited Dr. Batachariya Gupta to Massachusetts to record a video outlining alternatives to the current COVID-19 strategy. During the meeting, the three voluntarily decided to write a short declaration to summarize their thoughts.

Why was the declaration written?

The Declaration was written from a global public health and humanitarian perspective with special concerns about how the current COVID-19 strategy imposes the greatest burden on children, the working class and the poor. ..

Full text of the Great Barrington Declaration

“The Great Barrington Declaration-As epidemiologists and public health scholars of infectious diseases, we have serious concerns about the negative effects of the general COVID-19 policy on physical and mental health, an approach called centralized protection. Is recommended.

“We have devoted our careers to protecting people, both from the left and right, and from all over the world. Current blockade policies have devastating effects on short-term and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower vaccination rates in childhood, worsening cardiovascular outcomes, lower cancer screenings, and worse mental health. Over-mortality will increase over the next few years, putting the heaviest burden on young members of the working class and society. Not sending students to school is a serious fraud.

“Continuing to implement these measures until the vaccine is available will disproportionately harm the underprivileged and cause irreparable damage.

“Fortunately, we have a better understanding of the virus. We know that the vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than 1000 times higher in older people and weaker than in younger people. For children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including the flu.

As immunity grows into the population, the risk of transmission to all, including vulnerable people, decreases. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity, that is, when new infection rates stabilize, and that this can be supported by vaccines (although it depends on the vaccine). I don’t). Therefore, our goal is to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

“The most compassionate approach to balancing the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is for people with minimal risk of death to build immunity to the virus through natural infections while at the same time living a normal life. To be possible. The highest risk. This is called centralized protection.

Adopting measures to protect vulnerable people should be the central goal of public health response to COVID-19. As an example, nursing homes should use staff with adaptive immunity and frequently perform PCR tests with other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retirees living at home need to have groceries and other necessities delivered to their homes. If possible, they should meet outside the family rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures can be implemented, including an approach to multi-generational households, which is within the scope and capabilities of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should be allowed to resume their normal lives immediately. To lower the threshold of herd immunity, everyone needs to implement simple hygiene measures such as washing hands and staying at home in case of illness. Schools and universities should be open for face-to-face teaching. Extracurricular activities such as sports need to be resumed. Low-risk young adults need to work normally, not from home. Restaurants and other businesses need to open. Art, music, sports and other cultural activities need to be resumed. People at greater risk can participate if they so desire, but society as a whole enjoys the protection given to vulnerable people by those who have built herd immunity. “

On October 4, 2020, this Declaration was prepared and signed by the following in Great Barrington, USA:

Dr. Martin Kurdorf, Harvard Medical Professor, Biostatistician, and Epidemiologist with expertise in detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety assessments.

Dr. Snetragupta, Professor of Oxford University, epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Battacharia, Professor of Stanford University School of Medicine, Physicians, Epidemiologists, Health Economists, and Public Health Policy Experts Focusing on Infectious Diseases and Vulnerable Populations.

Clark County Public Health Response

Lacamas Magazine has asked the Clark County Public Health Service to respond to the Great Barrington Declaration. This is their official statement:

“The road to herd immunity is by vaccination, not by causing fatal illnesses in people. And we are far from herd immunity.

“It is estimated that less than 15% of the US population is infected with COVID-19, but more than 220,000 have died. At least 60-70% of the population will reach herd immunity. It seems that it needs to be infected. This means millions of additional infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths, if immunity to COVID-19 infection persists. And COVID-19 For those who survive, the lasting health effects they endure are still unknown.

“The idea of ​​isolating vulnerable people and opening up society to everyone else may sound appealing to some, but it’s not practical. The virus spreads to the community. If so, it can invade a vulnerable population. Young healthy people can be infected with COVID-19. Then they take it back to their families, go to school with classmates and teachers, and ask colleagues. Work. Vulnerable people are still interacting with others. They may live with others or have caregivers. They still need food and medical care. It cannot be completely isolated from the rest of the community. We can protect the most vulnerable people by wearing facial coverings, keeping physical distance and practicing hand hygiene. You can. This is necessary to slow the spread of the virus in the community.

Tom Frieden, director of the CDC from 2009 to 2017, wrote an opinion piece on the Washington Post’s herd immunity and COVID-19. Worth reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tom-frieden-herd-immunity-wrong-solution-coronavirus/2020/10/16/acb4ae8a-0fe6-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

To examine herd immunity a little closer to home: CDC looks for SARS-CoV-2 antibody among people who have had blood drawn and tested at a commercial laboratory in a particular region of the United States with large geographic serum We are conducting a disease rate survey. Western Washington is one of the regions.Latest data (samples collected July 6-7) Indicates an estimate of serum prevalence of 1.3%, and serum prevalence was consistently less than 2.5% in West Washington. You can check the data from the survey here: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#serology-surveillance.. “

Video link

Are there any conflicts of interest among the three authors?

According to their website, Dr. Kurdoff is working on research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the New York City Nonprofit Public Health Fund. Related to COVID-19. He has never received or received money from pharmaceutical companies or other large corporations.

Dr. Batacharya’s research funding over the last 22 years of his career almost entirely comes from grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agriculture, and participation in contracts with the Medicare and Medicaid Service Centers. (CMS) and the Government Contract Research Group Acumen, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through LLC. He has never received or received money from pharmaceutical companies or other large corporations.

Dr. Gupta’s research funding over the last three decades has been provided primarily through fellowships and researcher awards from the Wellcome Trust and the European Research Council. She is also funded by UKRI, the Royal Society, Leverhulme Trust, Emily and Georg von Opel Foundation, and Oxford Martin School. She and Dr. Craig Thompson have developed a new method for producing a universal influenza vaccine (derived from a mathematical model). It is currently licensed and has undergone initial testing. She does not hold consultant contracts or shares in any commercial company.

Other answers

Critics of the Declaration say the event it was signed by was hosted by American Institute of Economic Research, A conservative free market think tank in Great Barrington, with political motives.

“From a public health and ethical perspective, the fact that the Great Barrington Declaration is now the official policy of the Trump administration is very annoying,” wrote Dr. Gavin Yamai, a doctor at Duke University and a professor of global health and public policy. .. October 14th.. He says this “virus ripping” approach is “dangerous and inhumane.”

The Infectious Diseases Society of America statement He condemned the Great Barrington Declaration and called the herd immunity strategy against COVID-19 “inappropriate, irresponsible, and lack of information.”

Director of the World Health Organization Said at a media briefing on October 12th: “In the history of public health, herd immunity has never been used as a strategy to respond to outbreaks, not to mention pandemics. It is scientifically and ethically problematic.”

The signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have not receded and continue to defend their position.