Once again...because you claim the scientists and doctors listed on the front page are from the right of the political spectrum, they are automatically discredited. Don't bother going after what they actually say or the information they post, just attack them personally. Excellent doctrine. you and Here4Money are a match made in heaven with your dismissals, GWB. I suppose you consider the climate change denials the same way, right?
Once again... scientists and doctors provide their points by writing peer-reviewed scientific papers --- not by appearing on FOX News all the time. Nor do real scientists write papers with the "facts" in the paper given to them by conservative media -- where the paper needs to be withdrawn for pushing fake information. Let's go read an article which outlines these scientists proudly outlining their political activities while mainstream scientists and public health experts call them idiots.... with selected quoted text from the article. Coronavirus: Stanford doctors among leaders of global anti-lockdown movement https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10...ong-leaders-of-global-anti-lockdown-movement/ The declaration has drawn fire from other doctors and public health officials who say lifting lockdowns will only invite a new wave of COVID-19 infections and fatalities from the deadly virus. More than 7.6 million people in the United States have contracted the virus, and 213,000 people have died. “Whose grandmother and grandfather and family members are you willing to sacrifice for this stupid idea?” asked Santa Clara County Executive Jeff Smith, whose administration in March led the Bay Area in imposing the first U.S. lockdown in the pandemic" ----------- Bhattacharya, who drafted the declaration with doctors Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard University medical professor, and Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, has been at the center of the lockdown controversy from the start. In March, he co-authored a Wall Street Journal opinion column suggesting the new coronavirus may not be as deadly as many believe. The following month, he co-authored a Stanford study that indicated the virus was far more prevalent than presumed and as a result, the death rate far lower. That pre-peer-review study — which was later revised — drew withering criticism and even prompted Stanford to review the team’s work, which Bhattacharya said he was confident would be vindicated. ------------ But Smith, who has a medical degree, and other health experts say the approach called for in the declaration hasn’t worked so well in countries that have taken it, such as Brazil and Sweden. Brazil has the world’s fifth-highest per-capita COVID-19 fatality rate, according to Johns Hopkins University, though it is lower than that of Peru, which has the second-highest rate despite having had one of the world’s longest and strictest lockdowns. Sweden’s fatality rate is much higher than neighboring Norway, Finland, Denmark and Germany, though lower than that in the U.S., United Kingdom and Italy. “There are a lot of communities around the world that have tried to take the approach of ‘let it spread and we’ll do minimal separation and social distancing’ and have seen bad outcomes,” Smith said. He argues that the restrictions are needed to protect the vulnerable because the virus can be spread by people who don’t know they’re infectious. Experts like Dr. George Rutherford at UC San Francisco say the country is nowhere near reaching “herd immunity,” and loosening restrictions will only mean many more will have to get infected and die to reach that point. “It hinges on how many deaths we are going to tolerate before we get to a level of herd immunity where we stop transmission,” Rutherford said. “I have to come down on the side of preventing mortality.”
Actually, once again your attempt is to discredit the people without debating the points they make. Its ok. The great thing is that the public is waking up to the fact that you and yours have been hoodwinking the rest of us (or trying) and we're on to you now. You'll never have that power again - even if some day comes where you should.
Mainstream science, medical and public health experts accounting for over 99% of the people in these professions have already discrediting the political activists pushing this nonsense --- there is no need to further debate it.
99% of these professions have come out in discrediting this? Can you link to the 99%? I mean, that's a lot of people. I suspect you'll have a lot of links showing that.
Yes, it is okay. Top scientists in the field have already spoken. Meanwhile, there is dissent from the B Team, as it were. Why should we, laymen, debate what the top people in the field have universally concluded? Self-importance much? Next time you need neurosurgery and the top doctor in the field tells you what he thinks should be done, bring up the dissenting conclusions from naturopaths you read online. Or possibly from doctors in the field who have their offices above pizza joints. Yeah, let's "debate" that.
So you're saying the doctors who signed this are not credited? Can I pick two or three from the list and we can start there? Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Lets just start with these folks. I'm open to reading your discrediting of them with your professional knowledge that shows where they are off. I think Stanford, Oxford and Yale might be a bit more expensive in rent than apartments over Pizza joints, but I could be mistaken. And just for posterity, permit me to point out the main paragraph in the declaration you are claiming to be garbage, so you can - if possible - tell us what about it is garbage. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
I tend to agree with the thrust of this declaration, while admitting I'd have to see the data from those societies that do and those that don't. The declaration does state that masks remain very important. Lockdowns probably keep their utility for local breakout instances, but not so much globally. Rents and loans are being deferred, not forgiven. Insurance premiums are not falling (that I can see). With the new labor surplus, wages are sure to fall, and the recent strike actions which were reaching historical highs will subside. In the end the rich, I mean the rentiers, will once again pick up more and the best pieces.
Good on you, Ricter. Instead of focusing on partisan politics, you recognize where the main issue is, and what the declaration is actually saying, rather than focusing on who is saying it and how you can attack them. I tip my hat, sir.