Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fake Supporters

Absurd and evidence of bias for the section on authors/signatories of the declaration, to include descriptions of fake signatures by fictitious people who "support" the declaration, which no doubt came from a petition circulating on social media, which anyone can sign with a fake name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Are various countries/governments taking the GBD pill?

That question could be the foundation for a new section. I've just read a Guardian article indication that the answer for the UK is "no": [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine any National govt. seeing a one page document from some odd US think tank and thinking "aha! let's change policy based on this!" (no, not even in the UK <g>), though it's likely any policy announcement of any kind in the coming weeks might attract some fake descriptions of it being "prompted" by Barrington (as we have already seen with the WHO; see above). I suspect it will only be in the long term that we have sources telling us whether this stunt had any influence ... if, that is, it doesn't just get forgotten. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources say that this proposal is not very different from what Sweden and Brazil have been doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

People say all sorts of things about Sweden, without really bothering to find out what Sweden did and why. Sweden did not pursue a policy of achieving herd immunity (whereas this declaration believes, without evidence from similar infectious diseases, that herd immunity is inevitable and should be hurried up). Sweden did not allow people "with minimal risk of death to live their lives normally". For example, workers were asked to work from home, and 50% did . Secondary schools and universities were asked to adopt distance learning, which they did, for a period. Sweden had a large drop in those using public transport and town centres were empty. Large gatherings were banned. People were told not to travel abroad, and avoid travel during Easter, and they did. None of these recommendations would have been made if the intention, per this declaration, was to hurry up herd immunity among those unlikely to die of covid. Further, unlike this declaration's proposals, the retired population of Sweden did not get all their groceries and essentials delivered to their homes, nor were the care homes staffed only by those who had "acquired immunity" through previous infection. -- Colin°^Talk 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The declaration is unnecessary for Brazil. It's targeted at countries that aren't already doing it that way. I confess to being slightly surprised that even Hancock has been so quick to reject it. I'm less surprised that there are nutty Tories salivating over it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, basically this is a way for crazy regimes to opt out of (and retrospectively excuse) their atrocious inaction. And I am completely confident that the primary goal here was exactly that: a retrospective justification of the failed US policy in the run-up to an election that the Kochtopus is failing to control with anything like the effect it's had for the last 30 years. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

AIER is not "part" of Koch-funded networks, it has occasionally partnered with Koch-funded groups on research. As written, the entry implies that Koch controls AIER. 166.182.252.137 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the right wording is, but in 2018, AIER got money from both Charles Koch and Atlas. In addition, people might peruse the staff list. Among the more senior people, look for mentions of CATO, Mercatus Center and George Mason University, whose economics department has long received Koch+allies funding. Mercatus and CATO are strongly connected with Koch.JohnMashey (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the partnerships described here are more than occasional: https://www.aier.org/bastiatsociety-chapters/partnerships-and-agreements-for-our-chapters/ --Andreas JN466 08:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. People may be confused by fact that AIER is not quite like the large network of think tanks created/fostered by the Kochs in the 1980s/1990s, but preceded their existence. I have the Form 990s for the various Koch foundations (Charles Koch Fnd, Claude Lambe Fnd, Knowledge and Progress Fund, David Koch Fnd, Charles Koch Institute) and found no trace of $ before 2018. Kochs have long tried to recruit allies and insert people. Although I haven't yet done a thorough search of Wayback's AIER staff list, I noticed: Stephen Adams joined AIER in 2012, was President as of April 4 2016. At that point, they had 7 (Senior) Research Fellows, none with obvious Koch connections. By February 4, 2017, John R. Skar was President, pro tempore, and only 3 of the Fellows (Coate, Gulker, Hughes) remained. By July 2, 2017, Edward Stringham (PhD Economics from George Mason U, i.e., a dept with very tight ties to Charles Koch) had become President. AIER got Koch money in 2018. By December 29, 2018, only Gulker and Hughes remained as Fellows, but the Research Staff had expanded to 26 people, mostly Fellows, including those 2. In the current staff list, Baird was a VP of Mont Pelerin, Boettke is a Econ Prof at GMU & also Prof at Mercatus (& Hayek Visiting Fellow at LSE), Boudreaux is with Mercatus's Hayek program & past Chair of GMU Econ dept, , Carden is also Research Fellow at The Independent Institute (has gotten Koch $), Davies was program officer for the Institute of Humane Studies (funded & Chaired by Charles Koch), de Rugy is also Senior Research Fellow at Mercatus, deVos is a member of Mont Pelerin, Gartz attended a summer school organized by GMU, Hanke is at Cato, Jordan is with Fraser Institute (Koch $$) and Cato, O'Driscoll is with Cato, Thierer is at Mercatus, White is Professor of Economics at GMU, at Cato & Mercatus, Burns, Cato, Luther, Niles, Salter all have GMU Economics PhDs. Mercatus & Institute for Humane Studies are Koch-created think tanks located at GMU and the Economics dept is very tightly tied to Koch. Hence it is quite clear: AIER was a very different place through 2016, then brought in a President with Koch connections and now AIER is pervaded by people with those connections.JohnMashey (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been digging through Form 990s. Benjamin Powell joined AIER Board in 2017, same year as Stringham arrived. Powell is yet another George Mason University Economics PhD, a Sr Fellow of The Independent Institute, and most importantly, Exec Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech, of which was written Hostile Takeover -How the Koch brothers and their libertarian allies pushed their way into Texas Tech — and used public funds to do it. For those unfamiliar with the tactics, that's a very useful article.JohnMashey (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of looking at the sources: "sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science ...". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Still not clear. The quickest way to get this deed is by saying "replace this claim or citation with exactly this". GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry -- the point of my post is that there's no change needed here -- the current version is entirely in line with the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article is advocating rather than presenting a neutral point of view. The main point of the Great Barrington Declaration is that the lockdown's secondary effects on public health are worse than the lockdowns. This argument is not even made in the initial heading. An article about "What is the Great Barrington Declaration?" should include what it is.

The argument from the Great Barrington Declaration should be made in the initial heading, preferably with quotes to ensure neutrality.

Some of the sentences in the inital heading are not accurate.

For instance, "by working away from home and attending mass gatherings" is found nowhere in the declaration. It's an editorial that inaccurately states their position. The authors advocated returning life to normal, not intentionally attending mass gatherings.

Additionally, "They hope that as a result most of these lower-risk people will contract the infection but not die" The doctor's are presenting a policy plan, they aren't "hoping". The evidence shows younger people are far less likely to have complications or die. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the schools open and Dr. Fauci has testified to the Senate that children are low risk for complication. Children's lower risk has been echoed by the Mayo Clinic. The doctors understand probabilities and know that some will die. However, they also realize people die from the secondary effects from the lockdown (opiates, mental health, missing preventive cancer screenings, etc.). The whole point of the declaration is more damage is done from the lockdowns. This should be rephrased to be more medical and not suggesting that doctors are "hoping magically" people won't die of Covid-19. That's inaccurate and silly.

Lastly, the platform is not libertarian. That should be removed. Although it's fair to discuss the authoring organizations political leanings, the actual platform does not call for government non-intervention. The platform encourages active government intervention to protect vulnerable and seniors who would be high-risk. That's why it's called focused protection. Discussion about libertarianism should be placed in a critique section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.240.188 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. First thoughts: Re "attending mass gatherings" (the declaration's last para does mention arts, music and sports events), I see what you mean and it should be possible to find a better wording. As for criticism in the lead paragraph, the lead is meant to summarize the entire article, incl. criticism, so that is as it should be. Best --Andreas JN466 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like: "by working away from home and attending arts, sports and music events as they did before the pandemic" --Andreas JN466 16:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the following sentence "They hope that ...", it's not actually clear who "They" is, as there is no plausible antecedent. So maybe: "As a result, most of these lower-risk people would contract the infection but not die, and the resulting immune response would prevent ...

So the whole paragraph would read as follows:

The declaration advocates that individuals at high risk of death from infection should continue staying at home, and that people at low risk resume their normal lives, by working away from home and attending arts, sports and music events as they did before the pandemic. As a result, most of these lower-risk people would contract the infection but not die, and the resulting immune response would prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus from spreading to higher-risk people. The declaration makes no mention of social distancing, masks, contact tracing, nor of COVID-19 testing.

Thoughts? --Andreas JN466 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, my thoughts are that death is not the only long-term adverse outcome, especially in a world where protection of people with pre-existing conditions is under threat. Good luck getting insurance if you've had COVID, because the evidence of long term lung and other (including brain) damage is compelling. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Indeed. WHO Director-General Tedros made much the same point: "Third, we’re only beginning to understand the long-term health impacts among people with COVID-19. I have met with patient groups suffering with what is now being described as “Long COVID” to understand their suffering and needs so we can advance research and rehabilitation. Allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It’s not an option."

Note [2]. I've now had a go at the lead as follows:

The Great Barrington Declaration is a proposal written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on 4 October 2020.[1][2] It proposes a libertarian policy for the COVID-19 pandemic, under which only people who are personally at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease would be protected from infection.[3][4]

The declaration advocates that individuals at low risk of death from infection should resume their normal lives, by working away from home, socialising in bars and restaurants, and gathering in crowds at sports and cultural events.[5][6] Most of these lower-risk people would then contract the infection but not die. The declaration assumes that this would lead to a build-up of immunity in the population that would eventually also protect higher-risk people from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The declaration makes no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of testing and tracing.[4]

Critics of the declaration's recommendations, including academics and the World Health Organization, have stated the proposed strategy is dangerous and unworkable and that it would be impossible to shield those who are medically vulnerable, and that the herd immunity component of the strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.

The declaration was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.[1] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial.[7][8] --Andreas JN466 10:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, the second para should include the fact that it al;so omits any consideration of adverse effect on the low-risk infected group, which could include death, brain damage, long term lung damage and other (some as yet unknown) complications. This is the critical weakness of it IMO: it's like letting everyone but the elderly get flu, you will still have deaths and serious adverse effects, just not so many of them, and they will often be among those (in the US at least) who have no access to healthcare, especially if the other side of their agenda, the destruction of the ACA via judicial activism, gets through. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, long-term effects are now mentioned in lead. See [3]. Includes a link to Long COVID (which is little more than a stub right now). --Andreas JN466 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I found sources linking to "long COVID" and added. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

How did the 3 authors (Gupta (Oxford), Bhattacharya (Stanford), Kulldorff (Harvard) get connected with AIER? Unsure, but some hints from AIER

For possible connections, see 07/17/20 article by AIER's Jeffrey Tucker, Who Should Be on Trump’s New C-19 Advisory Commission? The ideas there are consistent with GBD. Did AIER recruit? Di Kulldorf recruit?

David L. Katz - Preventive Medicine

John Ioannidis - (at Stanford, was coauthor with Bhattacharya of the early Santa Clara study that was heavily criticized.)

Knut Wittkowski - Epidemiologist, was biostatistician at Rockefeller University, but they wrote The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski, disavowing his opinions and noting he never was a Professor there.

Michael Levitt - Nobel chemist

Jennifer Nuzzo - senior scholar, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins.

Johan Giesecke - was lead epidemiolgist in Sweeden for 10 years after 1995, "remains a consultant in a country that has managed to crush the virus with no social disruption and low levels of death."

Sunetra Gupta - Oxford epidemiolgist, of ocurse 1 of the GBD authors.

David Henderson - Economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

Then we find: Martin Kulldorff is not only a Professor of Medicine at Harvard, but is an AIER contributor, writing 08/31/20 article Delaying Herd Immunity Is Costing Lives JohnMashey (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cosy isn't it? It's also amazing to watch the far-right, having long attacked Sweden as a lair of socialism and "open borders", is now putting it back on a pedestal as though it were a laissez-faire paradise of eugenic freewill. Quite extraordinary. GPinkerton (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

JohnMashey, John Ioannidis is a well-known contrarian, but not a nutjob. His famous paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False is hugely influential and significantly advanced our understanding of quackery and the endless flood of false positives that underpins pseudomedicine. I strongly suspect that most of those involved were heavily steered towards a specific outcome by diligent framing, because if you ask them outright "is it worth letting half a million people die in order to protect the stock price of corporations" they probably would not say yes. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My post neither used the word nutjob nor implied it. The point of this is to try to understand the connections to a relatively-obscure think tank. I read Ioannidis' famed paper shortly after it came out & have long history of worrying about spurious or fake results. Search for my name in comments at Andrew Gelman's blog. Ioannidis had good points, but the title of paper exaggerated in the same way that he was complaining about. He primarily studied medical research, not the whole of scientific research. I'm an advisor at UCSF, so have often been involved in discussions of odd results in medical papers. I certainly believe there are many weak/wrong papers in medicine and psychology (the latter being a common topic of Gelman's), even ignoring the medical fakeries of the sort often exposed by [Elisabeth Bik] JohnMashey (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

JohnMashey, yes, Ioannidis became famous for one thing and now sees everything with the same eyes. I think he's primarily a statistician, isn't he?

It's rarely difficult to find contrarians to sign something, especially if you're not too careful how you frame it to them. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Kochs also funded Neil Ferguson

I stumbled upon this article from AIER by Donald J. Boudreaux. Just a little context, not saying we should use it as a source. "Tyler Cowen and the Mercatus Center this past Spring awarded funds to Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson. The reason for this grant of funds was Tyler’s admiration of the fact that Dr. Ferguson’s model served as the spark for massive lockdowns in the U.K. and the U.S. But here’s the thing: Until last year, Charles Koch served on the board of Mercatus and has been, and continues to be, a contributor. Clearly, if the Koch Foundation is buying opposition to covid lockdowns, it’s doing a poor job!" Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Well, he would, wouldn't he?" GPinkerton (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And now soon any mention of Ferguson over hundreds of Wikipedia articles will be preceded with "Koch-funded". Ferguson may have received funds from hundreds of other people, but somehow Wikipedians seem to think Koch is so special --Distelfinck (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I know that I added Koch-funded, but this does have echoes of the Soros BS on the right (albeit without the side-order of antisemitism). I suspect that it would be better to say "dark money funded", but that strays a little close to WP:SYN - funding via Donors Trust is a matter of record, as is the characterisation of Donors Trust as "the dark moneyt ATM", but direct references to AIER as dark money funded are much harder to find than references to them being Koch funded. What do people think about this? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure how AIER's money is dark. It was founded by a rich guy. His descendants are still involved in running it https://www.aier.org/governance/. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pelirojopajaro, see the linked article. They are funded by dark money. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, per Ahmed, much of AIER's money comes from its investments, so the amount of Koch or dark money involved seems to me to be minor. That AIER is embedded in a Koch-funded network is well-sourced and undeniable. But looking at sources, we are arguably making more of this by mentioning Koch in the lead than the media. I can only find a handful of sources mentioning the GBD and Koch in the same article at all. Most sources simply call AIER a "libertarian think thank", occasionally a "free-market think tank". There are no references to Koch in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ (which published an editorial favorable to the GBD) ... The only publications I find mentioning Koch at all, beyond Ahmed's Byline Times articles, are the Guardian (which provides no details but links to Ahmed), Gizmodo, the World Socialists (wsws.org), and the Berkshire Edge (local to AIER), which reports Ahmed's claims in some detail. I think the Sponsor info we have should always be in the article, but from looking at sources published to date, the mention of Koch in the lead may be over the top. (Pretty much the same goes for media mentions of climate change, or climate change denial in connection with GBD.) --Andreas JN466 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Link to AIER's Form 990, as given in The Berkshire Edge: [4] --Andreas JN466 15:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't see news about Koch funding Ferguson directly or indirectly, but newspapers have covered Koch funding of the "Great Barrington Declaration." I've seen this at the relatively mainstream Guardian [5] and Ars Technica [6], the left wing WSWS [7], and all the biggest papers in Germany including the FAZ [8], the Süddeutsche Zeitung [9], and Die Zeit [10]. The news even made it to Kenya's The Star [11]. So if Guy places the information here, that addition doesn't require any WP:OR or revisions to other pages: it's in newspapers and a part of the "Great Barrington Declaration"'s story. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Darouet, the info about Koch funding and climate change denial is in the article now, twice, both in the lead and the Sponsor section. I personally was only wondering whether it belongs in the lead or not, given that it's not so prominent an aspect in English-language coverage. It should always be in the body of the article.
  • ArsTechnica didn't show for me in Google or DuckDuckGo; so that's a good find by you. Three further English publications I've now found in Bing that mention Koch are Democracy Now: [12], Science Media Centre: [13] and the Toronto Star: [14]
  • And you're right, in German mainstream coverage the point about both Koch and climate change is very prominent. Those are all heavyweight publications. ZDF (the second-oldest national TV channel in Germany) is another example: [15]
  • As far as I'm concerned, we only have to decide whether it's prominent enough to include in the lead, or whether we should just say "libertarian think tank". An argument against would be that the number of English-language publications we've found that at least mention Koch in connection with AIER barely breaks into double digits, and the Guardian and the Toronto Star are the only major ones among those. But the German coverage sure is an argument in favour. Thanks for spotting that. --Andreas JN466 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• There is clear evidence of Koch-related involvement from 2017 onward, when there was a big turnover of management, Stringham became President, acquired Bastiat and brought in many Koch-related people, as I noted elsewhere on this talk page. That change is far more important than the relatively modest funding from Charles Koch and Atlas. I think the funding is simply an alert, one needs to look deeper. So far, I've not been able to find any particular close ties between AIER and Koch before 2017, although I looked hard in 2013, search for AIER in FOIA Facts 5 - Finds Friends Of GWPF. Although Jane Mayer covered many Koch-related think tanks in Dark Money(2016), AIER was not mentioned. The Kochs have always created/fostered organizations with Koch-trained people/operatives plus some money, while organizing allies to provide much more of the money. Among other things, it can cause trouble for a 501(c)(3) if too much of the money comes from a small number of donors. I have AIER's Form 990s from 2010 onward, and the contributions vary from $575K to $1,933K, and except for the Koch & Atlas grants in 2018, I have no idea where that money is coming from. Weirdly, every year except 2017 (when they got $1,933K), they show Revenue-expenses loss of usually $1-2.9M. Regarding Ferguson funding, Koch has sometimes funded efforts expected to produce desired results that did not [Berkeley Earth]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship 2

Can anyone please explain why I am prohibited from adding to this topic? I am a qualified editor, with relevant education and experience to the topic, and a clinical assistant professor at University of Kansas school of medicine. I am also one of the signatories to the Declaration. This topic is in the news and much new information has been added in the past twenty-four hours, including the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns. Please Wikipedia, don't follow Google, Youtube and the rest of Big Tech down the censorship hole. Doctorglenntaylor@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1111z (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ECP. As a signatory, you also have a WP:COI so should not be editing the article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, you have made fewer than 500 edits in total, so you fail to meet the minimum experience threshold. You can of course make suggestions here for possible edits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You're not listed as a 'co-signer', so if you're merely someone who signed the online declaration then there's no COI. As per above, you'll need to have 500 edits under your belt to edit this article. However, suggest an edit here and we'll try and implement it. Arcturus (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns is complete nonsense. There has been no "180" and reports to the contrary are at best tabloid or misinformation, verging on outright disinformation. (What the Anglo-Saxons called "lying".) There has been no influence whatsoever on the WHO by the AIER, neither should there be. Notions of censorship and Big Tech are just the usual campaign babble emanating from the fringes. As for volunteer anaesthesiologists, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore … GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I just can't understand why this search doesn't produce any results... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Or why the relevant link here is a 404: [16]. GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed this:

Google reportedly censored the declaration, removing it from the search results presented to users in most English-speaking countries, and instead directing them to articles critical of the declaration.

The reason is that (a) it's not true, at least for me, (b) this is not a very good source, and (c) the other sources I've seen are even worse. Google Search is famous for not messing with rankings, so claims that they're deliberately suppressing a new site are extraordinary claims, and they therefore require evidence in excess of just a political reporter hearing a Redditor's speculation. It's perfectly normal for a brand-new site to take a few days to get indexed and rise through the results.

I am specifically removing this claim because it is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. "Hey, some people thought it one web search engine was slow about indexing the website promoting this, and they ascribed nefarious reasons for the delay" is not something you'd expect to see if you were reading this 10 or 20 years later, so it doesn't belong in the article.

If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Re a), did you happen to read #Censorship_1 above? The site came back into Google's search results sometime today, but was most definitely missing in action yesterday. See also [17]. --Andreas JN466 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that it wasn't showing up in some people's (always personalized) search results at various points in time. That does not mean that there was any censorship going on. More to the point, the fact that a few users have asked about this does not mean that this is something that most reliable sources about this subject are even mentioning. Due weight requires us to have more than user complaints and someone in a minor political magazine writing that David Icke and his conspiracy theories shouldn't be removed from YouTube. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then and will see if further more substantial sources appear. :) --Andreas JN466 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a junk article, and shouldn't be cited here, but it's on par with the Byline Times piece that's used. WhatamIdoing, you just used a Wired opinion piece for statements of fact, how would that be different than if i were to use this Journal opinion piece in the same manner? Hey, i could say the WHO is now "recommending" the "focused protection" approach, seems like the way WP article are written. fiveby(zero) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm less than thrilled about all the sources at the moment. I've been reading through them. I've been wondering whether we can cut things down to the handful of best sources, but I think that those "best sources" may not have been written yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced it, but with an alternative source. It's an important aspect of the subject and needs mentioning. Arcturus (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a Zero Hedge reprint, no way. fiveby(zero) 21:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, what's the evidence that this speculation about Google's behavior is an important aspect of this declaration? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph (AUS) (paywalled): "Big Tech is hiding the truth about lockdowns" ... As late as Monday, plugging "Great Barrington Declaration" into Google produced a page of results all sceptical of the document, including articles from left-wing, pro-lockdown publications ... (Google snippet) --Andreas JN466 23:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Google say no censorship and that it's just because the site was new: "It can take a little time for our automated systems to learn enough about new pages like this for them to rank better for relevant terms. This delay can vary by country. This page is and was ranking in the first page in the US, has risen elsewhere & likely will continue automatically." They point out that the same thing happened with Joe Biden's campaign website. --Andreas JN466 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, as usual, a prosaic explanation that will silence exactly none of the QAnon nutters. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Yes, unfortunately. :( Gupta herself reportedly expressed her belief the other day that Google was ganging up on her. Just for reference, there is now a gizmodo article covering this: Conservatives Pull Google Into Their Plan to Let People Die --Andreas JN466 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Yet another article that says the words "funded by Charles Koch". This words should appear in the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: See [18] – I'd say that is patently true, fully borne out by the cited sources, and should get the point across. Agreed? --Andreas JN466 20:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

WhatamIdoing Google does not censor? Here is my experience. I searched for one of my peer reviewed journal articles and got 32 search results. I then logged off of letting Google identify me, and got 1800+ search results on the same search. Read up on Google's latest search problems before commenting, there is a lot going on of which you appear to be oblivious.216.197.221.129 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between personalizing search results and censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

John Snow memorandum

Should a page be started for the JSM, should we wait until more RSs become available, or is it enough simply to refer to it on this (GBD) page? Kitb (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's enough to keep it on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It's been mentioned plenty in independent media. GPinkerton (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Factually incorrect criticism

The following section:

{... Critics of the declaration's recommendations, including academics and the World Health Organization, have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and unethical, that it would be impossible to shield those who are medically vulnerable, that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood, and that the herd immunity component of the strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[5][8] ...}

Is entirely wrong factually and instead is incredibly biased political slander.

First of all, the proposed strategy of herd immunity is what has ended each and every entrenched epidemic in all of history. Even the last polio epicemic of 1948 was essentially over before the Salk vaccine was available in 1957. So it is not at all unethical or dangerous, and in fact herd immunity saves lives by allowus us to substitute those who will survive over those who are vulnerable and would otherwise die.

Of coruse it would be much easier to shield those who are medically vulnerable because if you stop tring to isolate everyone, you can focus just on isolating the vulnerable. In fact, you can deliberately infect the young and healthy, so you don't have to contact trace because you already know who and when they are infected, and can easily quarantine them.

The long term effects of covid-19 are fully understood, as 90% of the cases have now been proven to be so mild they are asymptomatic entirely. And anyone claiming immunity does not last, is just lying, since hundreds of experiments on vaccines proves that immunity is persistant. Only someone with political motivation would suggest that immunity means you can't get re-infected. Of course all viruses can re-infect. Immunity just means re-infection is asumptomatic, not that you can't get re-infected.

And the claims that the WHO or other organizations disagree with the Declaration, is a lie.

The WHO recently came out with the opposite, endorsing herd immunity and deprecating locks downs as harmful. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688

This criticism section should be removed or couched as possibly biased and unsubstantiated.

There is nothing wrong with saying there is disagreement with the Declaration, but the criticism should not contain factual mistakes or down right lies.

Herd Immunity (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Herd Immunity.

I agree that there is much misinformation about herd immunity. For example, we keep assuming that COVID-19 will end, even though a rational analysis would have to admit that it's possible that it won't. A lot of people believe there is a single, inherent R₀ number for each disease, but there isn't (because human-to-human spread of a disease depends upon human behavior, not just pure biology).

But thinking about the context of this document, "herd immunity" doesn't seem to be used to mean just herd immunity. It seems to be a "shorthand" phrase specifically for acquiring immunity through the strategy of getting infect with whatever is going around your neighborhood, as that's the only method of acquiring immunity at the moment. Herd immunity through vaccines (assuming any of them are effective) isn't really the focus of the document.

I'm sorry to say that immunity is not lifelong in every single case. Some immune responses are durable, and others fade over time. That's why Shingles is possible: you lose immunity to the zoster virus. That's why you need to get a Tdap booster shot every ten years: you lose immunity to tetanus and pertussis over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the ABC article you linked above, describing it as evidence that the WHO agrees with the GBD, says:

The WHO put out a six-step plan for governments to follow to ease restrictions.

To ease restrictions the WHO says governments should:

1. Ensure transmission is under control
2. Make sure health systems can care for every case — including tracing and isolating
3. Minimise risks in health facilities, including nursing homes
4. Have preventative measures in workplaces, schools and other essential places
5. Manage the risk of the virus being imported in from another place
6. Fully educate the community on the new normal, and how they can protect themselves

The Great Barrington Declaration agrees with points 3 and 6. It disagrees with points 1 (it advocates the spread of "natural infection" instead of control), 2 (no reference to testing and tracing), 4 (it advocates return to normality and makes no mention of physical distancing) and 5 (no reference to travel restrictions, which would at any rate hinder the goal of natural infection). So we can see just from that, without going into the WHO Director-General's very explicit comments (see the beginning of the "Reception" section in the article) that there are very substantial differences between the GBD and the WHO. --Andreas JN466 13:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you still misunderstand the Declaration and herd immunity both. The whole point is that herd immunity always ends ever epidemic once entrenched. There has never been one entrenched epidemic that was not ended by herd immunity. Some have been avoid by something else, but not ended. For example, we avoided Ebola through quarantine and contact tracing. We avoid future polio or smallpox epidemics by vaccinations, but since vaccines usually take about 5 years, not once has a vaccine ended an epidemic in progress. But yes, the implication when someone says "herd immunity", is that they also intend a scheme as to some sort of deliberate means of spreading the infection faster. Which is the reason herd immunity is so wonderful. Instead of the elderly randomly getting infected and dying, we can deliberately protect them by ending an epidemic quickly with healthy volunteers. In the case of covid-19, those volunteers should be under 38, to make their risk negligible. And that is why I disagree with your take on the Declarations stand on point 1. If one is deliberately infecting those at low risk, it is to end the risk to everyone else. So the point is the same at number 1, of getting transmission under control. You control who gets infected, the ones who will survive instead of the ones who will die. Point 2 is redundant if you deliberately infect because then you already quarantine them and you don't need testing or tracing. And the whole point is to then focus on the vulnerable. So the Declaration does talk about preventive measures of point 4, but they are not needed except for around the vulnerable only. Point 5 is moot now, since the US already has 8 million cases, to any travel restrictions are pointless.

The mistake Fauci made was understandable. Since only the very sick were being tested, the death rate looked high. But now that wider testing has shown that 90% of the infected were asymptomatic, we now know lethality for covid-19 is slightly lower than that of flu, and that the majority of the population already is immune. So then we are already VERY close to herd immunity, and the death toll from herd immunity with those under 38, would be far less than our monthly death toll now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.122.167 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you are defining your terms a little unusually. A epidemic starts; when cases reach a stable, persistent level (=what these authors define as the sign of herd immunity) due to natural immune response, then you call that "ending", but when cases decline due to any other means, you call that "avoiding". These are not the standard definitions.

Also, this "90%" claim is wrong. You might like to look at some more recent sources. The current belief is that about 20% of infected adults are – and, importantly, remain – asymptomatic. The rest of them are pre-symptomatic, which means that they had a positive test result before their symptoms appeared. This is hardly surprising, as we know that if a person is infected on Monday, he can be spreading the virus on Tuesday, but most people won't experienced symptoms until Thursday or Friday. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Some proposed sources

I've been looking for better sources, and I think I've got a few here that are better than some of what's currently cited:

• Lenzer, Jeanne (2020-10-07). "Covid-19: Group of UK and US experts argues for "focused protection" instead of lockdowns". BMJ. 371. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3908. ISSN 1756-1833. PMID 33028622.
  • News article in one of the most reputable medical journals
• Turner-Cohen, Alex (2020-10-11). "WHO doctor's stunning lockdown backflip". The Toowoomba Chronicle. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  • Australian daily newspaper. Helps situate the story in global/non-US-centric terms
  • The Toowoomba Chronicle is a small regional paper with 10-100k readership. I don't think this is sufficiently authoritative. 59.167.135.22 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Woolfolk, John (2020-10-12). "Coronavirus: Stanford doctors among leaders of global anti-lockdown movement". The Mercury News. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  • California daily newspaper. Includes specific comparisons to Sweden and Brazil, where strict lockdowns have not been imposed.

Please let me know what you think of these. I mostly think that these will replace and refine existing sources, instead of expanding the article even further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, these seem OK as long as we're not using them to assert that the claims in the "declaration" are in any way valid or peer-reviewed. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For Nabirro we should just cite the Spectator and leave it. There no need for the second-spun version. GPinkerton (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TBH, only the BMJ one sounds worth using. The others don't inspire me with feelings of journalistic excellence. Not sure why Nabirro is even relevant to this article, other than timing and having a vaguely similar angle. He mentions the lockdowns impacting the poor worst, which is no doubt true, but in the UK the virus is impacting the poor worst too, so it seems a bit of a buggered whichever way you turn situation. -- Colin°^Talk 07:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Colin, Nabirro is being used by the right to assert that the entire WHO has flipped on the issue. Which is, of course, bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Chronicle paragraph When asked about the petition, Dr Nabarro had only good things to say. “Really important point by Professor Gupta,” he said. completely misrepresents Nabarro. Nabarro was not responding to a question about the petition (by "petition" they mean the Declaration) at all, but to another very specific point made by Gupta, namely that national lockdowns have an effect on poorer countries' economies as well. You can see the interview here: [19] So I'd agree that you should not use the Chronicle article, at least not in this article to source commentary by Nabarro on the Declaration. --Andreas JN466 09:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I opposed the Science Media Centre quotes as a source earlier because we shouldn't be cherry-picking quotes from a primary source, but many RS are linking to that document so maybe i was wrong? fiveby(zero) 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby I'd say cite the secondary source(s), quote only what they quote, and add the Science Media Centre page as a second, ancillary reference. --Andreas JN466 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the probative value of describing the policy as "libertarian"?

"Libertarian" refers to a political ideology. It is mistaken to apply it to a medical proposal or protocol. It may be the case that it has some support among libertarians, but this does not mean you can term it a libertarian proposal--no more than you can deem a lockdown policy left-wing, or right-wing, on the grounds that in some places such a policy enjoys support among those sections of the political spectrum. I get the sense that the phrasing has the effect of delegitimising the proposal, by making it out to be essentially political. The sentence which states the proposal "makes no mention of masks, physical distancing" (and so on) comes across as critical, further making the proposal's authors' out to be somehow radical or political. I would argue that the seventh paragraph in the declaration implies that masks, among other things, may be a part of a wider response. Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase at the end of the opening "[...] libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" obviously implies there is some vague continuity between climate change denialism and opposition to lockdown policies. I say this because you could equally substitute "climate change denial" with "support for evolution", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", "low taxation", etc. The Koch brothers have their tendrils in all of those efforts too. So, specifically mentioning climate change denial is trying to slander by association the authors of the declaration, because this article uses a very malign example of Koch influence for no clear reason over a less odious example. Should also be mentioned that "Long COVID" is still a hypothesised syndrome without a clear etiology or way to diagnose, and it not recognised by major medical authorities, at least yet. It is good that it is set in quotation marks for this reason. The article may however benefit from simply using the phrase "possible long-term effects". Respectfully, it seems some people have gotten the idea that the GB Declaration is political in nature and are taking a political approach. But this is misleadign to readers. It should also be pointed out the policy advocates Focused Protection, not herd immunity— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mistaken to call the subject of this article a medical proposal or protocol. That's not correct. The Declaration is a 500-word political statement, not any kind of scientific endeavour. It's quite true that "climate change denial", "criminal justice reform", "immigration reform", and "low taxation" are all conservative talking points that Koch's money finds it way into. I don't see that being the case for "support for evolution", unless you're speaking about the kind of discount eugenics advocated by the Declarations more right-wing evangelists. GPinkerton (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not a political statement. That is simply a lie. Your attitude epitomises the continual efforts to invalidate the declaration as political in nature (and it's implied the politics buried somehow in it are radical or bizarre). The authors of the statement are not politcians, nor are the other scientists and doctors who have given their support. The reference to evolution is based on the fact the Koch brothers have donated to allow the Smithsonian to build exhibits around evolution, but the point I made in all that was that the Koch brothers have their tendrils in lots of things--and, as it turns out, in Neil Ferguson, via the Mercatus Centre--the article takes the most disliked and infamous of all Koch efforts and links it with the Declaration. The reader will infer from this there is a connection between climate denailism and Focused Protection. Why not substitute the phrase mentioning the Kochs' climate denialism for any of the other examples I have given? Do you have any basis to mention one but not the other? Your denigration of the proposal as a "500-word political statement" is an excellent example of the sort of thinking which leads to these innacuracies being put in the article. Clearly, a point-of-view is being expressed here, which you are entitled to hold, but certainly not entitled to push onto readers, who expect a neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.238.199 (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @GPinkerton that this is a political statement. It is a political statement about a medical situation, but it is still a political statement. The authors wrote things like "Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm". Declaring what you think society's goals ought to be is a political statement. Another person might reasonably say "Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and morbidity". Or the number of infections at one time. Or the total costs borne by taxpayers. Or interference with the individual "freedom" to go cough germs all over essential workers. Or any number of other things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You won't be able to find a serious source which refers to it as a "political manifesto" or suchlike. It's a scientific declaration. Your notion that the professed aim of the declaration's reccomendations, that is, to "minimise social harm", is political, is asinine. You will have to deal with the fact that there are a diverse range of opinions within the sciences as to how to respond to COVID-19. The manner in which you and the person to whom you replied both return to strawmanned, political POVs makes clear the reason this article is so full of bias. A real shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.238.218 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

False.[20] Alexbrn (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard of the "Big Cities Health Coalition". They have no Wikipedia page, so they must be pretty obscure. They call their mission "Advancing equity and health for present and future generations", something so vague it doesn't inspire confidence. You won't be able to find a serious source calling it political, because there is none I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To quote "The Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) is a forum for the leaders of America’s largest metropolitan health departments to exchange strategies and jointly address issues to promote and protect the health and safety of their residents. Collectively, BCHC member jurisdictions directly impact nearly 62 million people, or one in five Americans." Read more at PMID 25423051. Your central point is thus refuted. If you want to do something useful, maybe start writing that article on them that we are obviously missing? Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

14 American public-health groups, among them the Trust for America's Health and the American Public Health Association, published an open letter in which they warned that following the recommendations of the Great Barrington Declaration would "haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives", adding that "the declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way." Source: The Hill --Andreas JN466 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Great Declaration is ideology-based fringe science. That is what the sources say, and other sources, for example Merchants of Doubt, say that ideology-based fringe science is what libertarian think tanks have been doing for decades. There is no need for specific words like "political" to be present. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That argument sounds awfully like WP:SYN to me: if you have a good source that directly supports this claim then you can simply provide it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As Gorski points out in his SBM piece, the AIER want to present the proposal as sitting outside politics, but in reality ithe AIER is "anything but" - the proposal uses the "disguise of science by portraying their agenda as organically arising from the science, using scientists ideologically sympathetic or aligned with them to spearhead their message". We should not let Wikipedia naively fall for their bait-and-switch, and need to be clear this is a political play. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, American National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins told The Washington Post that the proposed strategy was "a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment. I'm sure it will be an idea that someone can wrap themselves in as a justification for skipping wearing masks or social distancing and just doing whatever they damn well please." [21] --Andreas JN466 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenhalgh et al (2020) reference

Greenhalgh et al (2020) might be a useful addition to this article. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, already present! Should have checked more closely. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Reception: Dr David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19

Under "Other support", Dr David Nabarro's comments should be added, since they are notable, relevant, and sourced.

David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19, said "really important point by Professor Gupta, I want to say it again, we in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdown as a primary means of control." and "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer" in response to a question regarding Professor Gupta's views on lockdown's impact on wider health outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE&feature=youtu.be&t=24m37s https://spectator.com.au/2020/10/will-the-last-dan-standing-turn-out-the-lights/ https://spectator.us/lockdown-incredible-vanishing-world-health-organization/

This is notable and relevant because David Nabarro's role at WHO is "Disseminate WHO guidance on COVID-19 readiness and response" and "Provide strategic advice on preparedness, readiness and response to COVID-19 outbreaks;". https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/who-director-general-s-special-envoys-on-covid-19-preparedness-and-response

I have created a new section (as oppposed to "Response section missing WHO has just come out strongly AGAINST lockdowns") because I believe it is fairer and more accurate to state it is Dr David Nabarro's position. HoldPowerToAccount (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Discussed above. These comments do not amount to "support" for the GBD, but merely points out that one of the signatories agrees with the WHO's position. Please only use this template for edits for which consensus has already been obtained, per the template usage instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly, while distancing himself from the GBD, Dr Fauci has also now said that he is opposed to lockdowns: [22], Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly: he says they are only justified in extremis. This has pretty much been the mainstream position throughout, and as much RS points out the opposition between "lockdown" and "freedom!" set up by the AIER, is a phoney one. Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not merely that one of the signatory agrees with the WHO's position. This was David Nabarro's comments in response to a question about the negative health outcome costs of lockdown (the key idea of GBD) as raised by Dr Gupta, one of the three authors (not a just a signatory) of the document, 4 days after the document was written. That quotation is relevant and does not overstate or mischaracterize David Nabarro's comments. By your logic, should we not include Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus's quotations (which don't refer to GBD specifically)? Clearly there is some interpretation that is occurring when we're deciding whether to include quotations. We should include Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus's because it's clear that's in relation to the topic of the document, and we should include David Nabarro's for the same reason. Sorry for using the template for a suggestion that has not reached consensus. HoldPowerToAccount (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As he said "I want to say it again". He's just observing there's agreement on this point. Anyway, you have your answer to the edit request. Alexbrn (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

From a New York Times article published yesterday:

'Dr. David Nabarro, a special envoy to the World Health Organization, has urged governments not to resort to lockdowns as the primary method to control the virus. Masks, social distancing, fewer crowds, testing and tracing — these are the ways to control the virus in the long run, he said in an interview.

'But the lockdowns in the spring were necessary, he added, as emergency measures to give countries time to put in place strategies to control the virus.

'"There is a middle way,” Dr. Nabarro added, between strict lockdowns and letting the virus freely infect people. "If only we had a few more world leaders who would understand this, we wouldn’t have this debate going on."'[23]

It should be obvious from the above that Nabarro's position is very different from what's advocated by the GBD. --Andreas JN466 14:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear so. However, has Nabarro mentioned the GBD? If so, we should have a reference to it in the article. If not, then his thoughts on the matter should not be in the article. Mentioning Gupta and 'lockdowns' as he appears to have done, would not normally be sufficient to include his views here, unless he was specifically referring to Gupta as an author of the GBD. Arcturus (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

He seems to be referring to GBD in the interview quoted in yesterday's NYT piece. Quote: "The most recent statistics indicate that 20 percent of deaths from Covid-19 occur in people under age 65. And about a third of people who have recovered from the disease, including the young, still struggle with symptoms weeks later (a phenomenon the Barrington authors contest). “It’s amazingly irresponsible” not to take these risks into account, Dr. Nabarro said." If we could find video/audio of that interview the precise context of his comments might become clearer. --Andreas JN466 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note image caption in that NYT piece: 'Dr. David Nabarro, an envoy to the World Health Organization, has said that lockdowns may do harm to countries, but rejected President Trump’s interpretation of his comments. “There is a middle way,” he said.' Given how widely reported Nabarro's anti-lockdown comments were, I tend to think there should be some mention of them in the article; people may well be looking for them and find it odd if there is nothing about him. --Andreas JN466 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of 'RS' that link his comments to the GBD [24] [25]; the only issue is that the quote may potentially come from here (9:45 to 10:30); in this video he's responding to this interview, apparently lifted from here, uploaded on 1 Oct; according to the GBD website [26] from 1-4 Oct they were gathering at the AIER, where per here they drafted the declaration between 2 & 4 Oct; so the question is, when did the Spectator interview take place; can we eg find the fireplace in one of the other videos showing they were effectively coeval; if so, are the extended thought processes that also went into the filming of the video which spontaneously occasioned the written declaration relevant here; did Dr Nabarro say this again; or does all this verge on OR and we should just go with these initial sources (there are likely others)? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's obvious some early responses in a couple of Australian media outlets were completely off-base. Luckily, more recent authoritative sourcing gives us the full picture. Youtube and the GBD's own site are obviously not good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

On the problem with the "backflips" article ('When asked about the petition, Dr Nabarro had only good things to say. “Really important point by Professor Gupta,” he said.'), see #Some proposed sources above. It's not what Nabarro was actually asked about. --Andreas JN466 16:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

structure -- adding paragraphs

Can I suggest that further expansion of this article via addition of paragraphs e.g. in the "responses" sections is not desirable. I'm not complaining about any particular addition -- what I'm getting at is that the increase in length in this mode is not valuable to the reader. It's what I tell my students: it's very inefficient to write a literature review where the mode is "one paragraph per study". Much better to write in a mode organised by topic/theme/finding, and then cite multiple sources for the various people who are making the same basic points. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)