Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

	This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

COVID is not risk-free even for those who are statistically at less risk

The title of the section indicates that it is talking about those who would not be considered part of the vulnerable population. However, it states that, given a 1% death rate, the UK would expect 700,000 deaths if the disease was allowed to run rampant. I see two possibilities. First, that this is supposed to estimate the number of people who would be killed just among those not in the vulnerable group, in which case it is wrong. The UK population is about 66 million, 1% of which would be 660,000. However, this estimate is based on the UK population including the vulnerable population, and it neglects the fact that the death rate is not uniform across vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. The death rate is higher for vulnerable populations and lower for non-vulnerable populations (most sources seem to put it at >10% for those 80+, less than 0.5% for those under 50, for instance). The second possibility is that this is supposed to be what would happen if the virus was allowed to run rampant without any precautions taken (that is, assuming the Barrington plan has no efficacy at all), in which case it doesn't seem to make sense to have it in this section, which is ostensibly about those who are statistically at less risk. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a few threads here, but I think the main thing is that the "about 700,000 deaths" is very much a rule of thumb thing, particularly since the IFR isn't actually 1% but "hovers around that figure" as the article says. I feel that saying "about 700,000" is enough to depict that as an illustration (and indeed, there may be other deaths that result from this that are not directly due to COVID e.g. people failing to get standard medical care because hospitals are full of the sick and dying. I appreciate the point about the 700k including the "vulnerable" population, however as is noted elsewhere and is generally agreed, shielding these populations from COVID entirely is functionally impossible, logistically and socially strenuous to the extent that it is possible. As such it is fair to include those who are supposedly going to be "shielded" in this total, since in the actual reality of "focused protection" being attempted, they would not be (and indeed, many deaths actually did occur amongst those who were "shielded" in the real world). MortgageBalls (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it would be impossible to effectively shield the vulnerable. My thinking is more that this statistic would be better placed elsewhere in the article, than that it should be removed entirely. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspirology time

Isn't the millions of deaths the whole (implicit) point? Sort of thinly veiled "kill the poor", since the rich in that case would be able to self-isolate anyway, and will be the first to secretly get the vaccine (as it happened in reality). Arisano (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Irrational Wiki

This article is very poorly written. There is not a single thing in is worth quoting. To begin with, science happens when a hypothesis is tested and shown to be false, and in the contrary case, the scientific method is not being exhausted to its bitter end, and no science has occurred. The Great Barringtion Declaration (GBD) is a petition, it is not science nor is it pseudo-science. Science/pseudo-science is a false dichotomy for the GBD. What scientists call such things as the GBD, if it were published in scientific journal, would be called "Opinion" and if it were an opinion solicited by the journal it would be called an "Editorial." If that opinion were the consensus of a group of specialists representing a particular professional group, like "The American College of Radiology" and if it were published in a scientific journal they would likely issue a society approved set of practice guidelines called a "guideline." Guidelines are useful as a collection of published opinion which gives scientists something worth disproving. None of these is the case for a petition and calling it pseudo-science is irrational. The rest of the article is unfortunately also off-the-wall. It is OK to criticize, that is what science is about, but to do so with arguments that are ridiculously implausible, and literally dripping with obvious antipathy and uncontrolled emotional reaction does not make your case. The reader can tell you don't like something about the GBD, but with such hatred on display, it is hard to make out what that is. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! GeeJayK (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)