Covid experts: there is another way
Three eminent epidemiologists met in Massachusetts to plan a better response to the pandemic.
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
“This is the saner approach, the more scientific approach,” the authors tell Freddie Sayers
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.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 4th October 2020
To sign the declaration, follow this link: www.GBdeclaration.org
Read more at unherd.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Roger Higgs
| #
This solution (isolate only the vulnerable “old and infirm”) has for several months been so laughably obvious that its non-implementation proves beyond reasonable doubt that covid fear porn is being deliberately perpetuated (by the not-so-secret cabal which already controls the banks, UN [includes corrupt IPCC & WHO], EU, WEF, MSM, Hollywood, Facebook, etc.) in order to (A) crash the world economy (devalued assets will be snapped up for peanuts), (B) keep the sheeple frightened (therefore obedient) and (C) make $$trillions from a vaccine.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Spot-on Roger!
PROJECT FEAR continues.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
No software-based test can identify a sequence of DNA nucleotides as belonging to any particular pathogen, as inadvertently admitted by software programs (FASTA and BLAST being two such widely used software programs) that search for similarities when running a Query and Database Sequence, searching for a match between a database of billions of nucleotide sequences with that of the target nucleotide sequence being amplified. Similarity* informs us the target nucleotide can’t be identified (‘seen’) by the software, otherwise there would be a precise match with the database nucleotide sequences.
What the PCR non-test is actually identifying are the numbers of nucleotide sequences amplified in green dye. When amplification is, let’s say, 20x the software gives a negative result because it can’t detect the green-dye. When amplification is increased to 35x the PCR non-test will give a positive result approximately 5% of the time because it can detect the green dye. At 50x amplification the PCR non-test will give an 75% positivity rate. When amplification is increased to 60x, the PCR non-test gives 100% positivity. What the PCR non-test is actually identifying is the green dye(!):
“SYBR® Green I is a commonly used fluorescent dye that binds double-stranded DNA molecules by intercalating between the DNA bases. It is used in quantitative PCR because the fluorescence can be measured at the end of each amplification cycle to determine, relatively or absolutely, how much DNA has been amplified.”
If the green dye is removed from the PCR non-test, the result of the non-test will show 0% positivity 100% of the time!
At my blog, read the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Imagine criminal forensic science requiring only similarities for fingerprint identification! Yeah, just as with the false positive laden PCR test, 100% of the nation would be guilty of a crime every time a fingerprint check was run! Or how about forensic DNA matching requiring only similarities! Imagine running a forensic ballistic test and only looking for similarities in bullet striations! Now one can fully appreciate the fraud behind the PCR non-test.
Reply
Monty
| #
“…….perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors.”
Really?
Reply