[The Great Barrington Declaration] suggests that scientists fall into two camps: those who are pro-lockdown and those who think we should avoid lockdowns and allow people to become infected, hopefully building up enough herd immunity along the way.
So how much of a divide is there?… Almost every single major medical body is on the “side” of not allowing Covid-19 to run unrestrained through young people. Instead, let’s look at the substance of the Great Barrington Declaration itself.
The gist of the declaration is this: lockdown policies have significant negative effects on other health outcomes, and so governments should pursue a strategy that the signatories call Focused Protection – shielding vulnerable people from infection while letting the virus romp through the rest of the population.
Many scientists have pointed out that completely shielding vulnerable people is practically impossible, but the Great Barrington Declaration authors don’t even make an effort to indicate how this shielding might work. In a video interview with UnHerd, Jay Bhattacharya a professor at Stanford University Medical School and one of the declaration’s authors, struggled to explain how a school age child living with a grandparent should actually change their behaviour to protect people.
[W]hen we’re weighing up whether one approach is better than another, we should be extremely clear about what is science, what is supposition and what is just surface.