"... Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way.
That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent..."
From the article:
"This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.
Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.
I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?
On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever.
I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.
But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.
"For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young.
When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.
Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.
The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.
But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote."
"According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers."
metmike: Welcome to the new world professor. This is how it's been for us so called climate-change deniers for the past 2 decades.
They hijacked climate science and invented a manufactured brand of science(created the IPCC, which has been anointed the infallible source for all climate science in every country-they even rewrote climate history to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period) then told the world that climate science was settled 20 years ago and they shut down the debate with anyone that disagrees..............vilifying and smearing them.
I have all the authentic data to prove real science but the gatekeepers use a theoretical science, with simulations of the atmosphere going out 100 years which have been too warm for 3+ decades.
Even as the real data pours in that shows conclusively why these global climate models are too warm by 50% and its not as bad as the predictions and the planet greens up with most life doing well to better.......... in order to generate actions for their political cause they claim that its even worse than they thought and come up with even bigger exaggerations and attack anybody that disagrees.
The optimal temperature for most life on the planet is probably 3 to 5 degrees warmer than this and the optimal CO2 level is definitely double the current level for most life.
But none of that matters. Authentic science does not matter. The scientific method does not matter.
They have a political agenda and it can best be accomplished by taking away fossil fuels from the rich countries and getting them to pay for their CO2 sins by making up a fossil fuel caused climate crisis and using the Climate Accord to impose their transfer of wealth actions and restrictions...........while doing exactly ZERO to affect the climate, which is the best climate in the last 1,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration
This is what its really all about below:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
The Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and environmental protection. More important than ever, the goals provide a critical framework for COVID-19 recovery.