Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Great Barrington Declaration" in English language version.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Some people have set out this more relaxed approach, including those in the so-called Great Barrington declaration. I want to take this argument head on, because on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central claims and both are emphatically false. First, it says that if enough people get covid, we will reach herd immunity. That is not true. Many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, such as measles, malaria, AIDS and flu, and with increasing evidence of reinfection, we should have no confidence that we would ever reach herd immunity to covid, even if everyone caught it. Herd immunity is a flawed goal without a vaccine, even if we could get to it, which we cannot. The second central claim is that we can segregate the old and vulnerable on our way to herd immunity. That is simply not possible.
When I first heard of the Barrington declaration, I thought it was something to do with cricket, but it turns out that it is not. Sir [sic] Ken Barrington was a very distinguished cricketer. I will not go into the Barrington rules for children to play under, which are very successful. … The Government are sceptical about the Barrington declaration …
I was very glad to sign the Great Barrington declaration and to encourage parliamentarians of all parties and both Houses to sign it to show that there is political consensus in both Houses and across all parties for another way. This is plan B, authored by Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya and signed by 1,120 medical and public health scientists, 1,241 medical practitioners and more than 19,000 members of the public, including me. I commend it to the Government.
I turn in the last few seconds to the Great Barrington declaration. No one can deny that it is well motivated. Indeed, it says: "Keeping these measures" – lockdown policies around the world – "in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed." I have been looking closely at the critiques of the declaration. Professor James Naismith of the University of Oxford wrote: "Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science." For the reasons that I have given, I am convinced that the Government must find an alternative strategic plan between the Great Barrington declaration and where we are today.
Can we have a debate on censorship? Then we would be able to discuss the sinister disappearance of the link from Google to the Great Barrington declaration, couldn't we?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of censorship. The Government are sceptical about the Barrington declaration, but that does not mean that people should not be free to discuss it, and it is a worrying trend for large internet operators to think that they should be the arbiters of free speech. It is not for them to arbitrate over free speech. It is perhaps even more troubling that they are sometimes slow to take down material that could damage children, but they are not so slow to take down things that they do not agree with politically, and that raises important questions.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Some people have set out this more relaxed approach, including those in the so-called Great Barrington declaration. I want to take this argument head on, because on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central claims and both are emphatically false. First, it says that if enough people get covid, we will reach herd immunity. That is not true. Many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, such as measles, malaria, AIDS and flu, and with increasing evidence of reinfection, we should have no confidence that we would ever reach herd immunity to covid, even if everyone caught it. Herd immunity is a flawed goal without a vaccine, even if we could get to it, which we cannot. The second central claim is that we can segregate the old and vulnerable on our way to herd immunity. That is simply not possible.
When I first heard of the Barrington declaration, I thought it was something to do with cricket, but it turns out that it is not. Sir [sic] Ken Barrington was a very distinguished cricketer. I will not go into the Barrington rules for children to play under, which are very successful. … The Government are sceptical about the Barrington declaration …
I was very glad to sign the Great Barrington declaration and to encourage parliamentarians of all parties and both Houses to sign it to show that there is political consensus in both Houses and across all parties for another way. This is plan B, authored by Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya and signed by 1,120 medical and public health scientists, 1,241 medical practitioners and more than 19,000 members of the public, including me. I commend it to the Government.
I turn in the last few seconds to the Great Barrington declaration. No one can deny that it is well motivated. Indeed, it says: "Keeping these measures" – lockdown policies around the world – "in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed." I have been looking closely at the critiques of the declaration. Professor James Naismith of the University of Oxford wrote: "Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science." For the reasons that I have given, I am convinced that the Government must find an alternative strategic plan between the Great Barrington declaration and where we are today.
Can we have a debate on censorship? Then we would be able to discuss the sinister disappearance of the link from Google to the Great Barrington declaration, couldn't we?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of censorship. The Government are sceptical about the Barrington declaration, but that does not mean that people should not be free to discuss it, and it is a worrying trend for large internet operators to think that they should be the arbiters of free speech. It is not for them to arbitrate over free speech. It is perhaps even more troubling that they are sometimes slow to take down material that could damage children, but they are not so slow to take down things that they do not agree with politically, and that raises important questions.