The blatant political and personal attacks on the integrity and qualifications of the three original signers of the “Great Barrington Declaration” (“GBD” or “Declaration” ), Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr.Sunetra Gupta, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
by the reactionary “John Snow Memorandum
” (the “Memo”) are more prominent than any legitimate criticism, much less an honest breakdown of the science behind it.
The Declaration’s original authors are three physicians, extensively published instructors at prestigious teaching institutions. They are acknowledged epidemiologists immunologists, experts in vaccine development, biostatistics, economics & health care policy. The article refers to the author’s as “defiant” “professors” & contrast them with the “scientists” who disagree.
Yet, the words “physician” or “Doctor” do not appear in the Guardian article, at all. There’s absolutely no discussion of the GBD author’s qualifications. Instead, the argument turns immediately to politics, and blaming the supporters of the earlier document for the response of the latter.
The reactionary “John Snow Memorandum” was written a few days after the GBD was announced. The Memo authors oppose the GBD mainly by claiming their own purity of agenda, free of both politics and financial interests. They imply that the Declaration is tainted because of backing from the economics think tank, the American Institute for Economic Research,
which is supported by business donors and investment fund that sponsored the original conference presentation.
The Memorandum authors paint with a broad brush to discount natural immunity, insisting that the only way for governments to react to COVID-19 is to mandate total lockdowns and strict isolation of entire populations until acquired immunity from a vaccine can be implemented.
The Memo doesn’t give us any guidelines to enforcing the mandates, they throw pejoratives like the Guardians’ “deniers,” or “right-wing” (and “creationists
!”), as though the GBD signers disavowed any use of common sense infection control such as hand-washing, distancing, or masks.
The major points of discussion ought to be that by some estimates deaths due to the lockdowns and restrictions
equal or exceed the deaths due to infection, and that protecting the vulnerable by “focused” isolation, hand washing, and masking of the vulnerable where needed is much more achievable and humane than using laws legally mandating these same measures (along with fines, involuntary quarantine, intrusion in private realms and appropriate total isolation), in an attempt to protect everyone for another year or so.