[ad_1]
Elias Mosialos made a new and quite different post, putting on the table the “declaration” of Great Barrington and those who devalue human rights, with what they propose to combat the coronavirus.
RELEVANT ARTICLES
The LSE professor, who often analyzes in his posts the medical developments around vaccines, the epidemiological panorama of our country, but also other interesting topics, dealt with the three Oxford professors who are trying to bring back as a proposal to face the pandemic. “Group immunity”.
Among other things, he says: “His proposals increase the risk of premature death of our vulnerable compatriots, while the youngest will become guinea pigs exposed to the long-term consequences of the disease.”
Elias Mosialos’s Post on Modern Darwinism
On October 4, Great Barrington’s ‘declaration’ to manage the pandemic appeared on a website of the same name, originally signed by three professors from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford. Subsequently, many rushed to subscribe, including some scientists from various specialties, but representing less than 0.01% of the global scientific community.
Of course, the statement is also signed by various world-famous personalities, such as Dr. Johnny Bananas, Dr. Fake News (mtf. Dr. Fake News), but also the late Dr. Sipman, the English general practitioner who killed hundreds of women. These are the first facts that one discovers when looking at the website where the ad has been posted. They adequately demonstrate the stinginess of this initiative. But are they the only ones? Of course, no
But what else is mentioned in the text of the declaration, among others?
Copy of, translated in draft, published in Greek text:
As immunity increases in the general population, the risk of infection decreases in everyone, including the vulnerable. We know that all populations will eventually reach “herd immunity”, that is, the point at which the rate of new infections will be stable, and that this can be helped by (but not dependent on) a vaccine. Therefore, our goal should be to minimize mortality and social damage in general until we reach that level of immunity. The most socially sensitive approach that balances the risks and benefits of achieving “herd immunity” is to allow those with minimal risk of death to live a normal life to acquire immunity to the virus through natural infection, better protecting those at greater risk. We call this Focused Protection. ‘
According to the text of the declaration, people at low risk of contracting the virus should be allowed to live their lives normally, in order to create immunity to the virus through natural infection and, ultimately, “protect “to those most at risk. They believe that those who are not vulnerable should have the opportunity to start their lives as usual immediately.
In short, they believe that we should pursue herd immunity by focusing on isolating vulnerable groups. That is, they bring back to public debate what various people, such as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said in January and February.
And, in essence, how exactly can they be better protected when the vulnerable (35-40% of the population) if the majority of the population does not follow public health measures?
How exactly will the vulnerable be separated from the younger in age? The theoretical figures are fine, but how will all this be done in practice?
The group signing the “high-minded” declaration has never taken a practical position. They have never been placed since the beginning of the pandemic. They had 9 months to think of “solutions”, but they didn’t. In England, the failed attempt to achieve herd immunity resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. The vast majority of the dead were vulnerable citizens.
Also, these eminent and respectable scientists from famous universities, calling on the world to take life into its own hands, do not present all the scientific data. They believe that the youngest will not have any problem if they contract the virus. The truth is that although mortality is lower for those who do not belong to vulnerable groups, this does not mean that they will not have long-term health problems if they contract the virus. Perhaps even if they are asymptomatic. And they can also risk losing their lives if they get stuck.
Boris Johnson, who initially supported the views of those who signed the statement, was hospitalized and nearly lost his life.
We all believe that the correct strategy is to protect the elderly and vulnerable, but this will not be done with their stigma and social isolation. It will not be done with social Darwinism. These are outside the moral foundations of our democratic societies.
The scientists who wrote this statement seem to have nothing to do with the functioning of families and society. They don’t seem to care that what they propose devalues human rights, our value system, and medical ethics. His proposals increase the risk of premature death for our vulnerable compatriots, while the youngest will become guinea pigs exposed to the long-term consequences of the disease.
Those who sign the declaration constitute a subpopulation of 0.01% of the scientific community both in their universities and globally. But they wanted more signatures. Perhaps that is why they are not interested in being partners in this endeavor of Dr. Banana.
[ad_2]
