• Subcribe to Our RSS Feed

Great Barrington Agreement Covid

Dic 10, 2020 by     No Comments    Posted under: Sin categoría

Mr. Baral told the BMJ that three steps should be accompanied by an easing of restrictions: first, the removal of barriers to access to health care; second, paid leave for those affected by Covid-19; and finally, housing allowance for these people in multigenerational households. Gentlemen, I note that among the 16,000 scientists who support Great Barrington`s statement, “Dr. Brian Blessed; In-flight doctor with wings, z cars and resounding laughter, “Dr. Johnny Fartpants” and “Dr. Johnny Bananas”. But the serious point is that the idea of “targeted protection” is both unethical and non-practical. Even if this was not the case, the signs of the impact of the long Covid on adjustment and young people are piling up. With regard to herd immunity, we currently have 8% sero positivity, but we would need 70% for herd immunity, and it is totally inappropriate to ask young Britons to run the risk of a long Covid to achieve this. Winter is coming, and cold temperatures and more internal activity will increase prevalence. Great protection is simply not a worrying option.

The noble gentleman makes a very good point. Although I have not received any legal advice on this, I am sure he is on the right track. The great protection would condemn anyone with anasthma or learning difficulties, as they age or with a major disability or immune challenge, to be imprisoned while society is turning away. This is not a decision that this government is prepared to make. Despite more than nine million cases in the United States, less than 10 percent of Americans have COVID-19 antibodies. Even if the actual number of cases were 10 times higher than is recognized, 94% of people would remain vulnerable and, if quickly infected, would flood the health system and cause many preventable deaths. The authors – Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine and Economics at Stanford – said that because the elderly die 1000 times more often from Covid-19 than young people, a “historic age” approach could allow resources to be focused on elderly patients and patients at risk , while it allows young people and healthier people to focus on resources. to go to school and keep businesses open.

He defended the Swedish approach and said that “schools have never been closed to children aged 1 to 15, with zero Covid-19 deaths . . . and the United States has now overtaken Sweden in terms of deaths per million inhabitants, although Sweden has an older and riskier population. 5 Gentlemen, the minister and I are very much in agreement on this point. The scientific understanding of Covid-19 suggests that the virus is not guaranteed by immunity. In fact, cases of second infections are emerging in the world. Does the minister agree that until we have a vaccine, this proposal is dangerous and uncertain and raises the question of who decides who should lock themselves up and for how long? Thousands of doctors and public health scientists have signed a declaration advocating an alternative approach to public health in the management of Covid-19. In this article: Anthony Fauci, anti-vaccine, coronavirus, Covid-19, Donald Trump, Vaccine This article is provided freely according to the terms and conditions of the BMJ site for the duration of the Covid 19 pandemic or otherwise by BMJ.

You can use, download and print the article for both legal and non-commercial purposes (including text and data extraction), provided all copyright mentions and trademarks are retained.

Comments are closed.