JavaScript is not available.

#TheGreatBarringtonDeclaration calls for allowing #covid19 to spread openly while “protecting” the elderly/vulnerable. While I actually believe the authors mean well, there are multiple reasons why I believe this is a seriously problematic proposition. THREAD:

Show this thread

184

349

The GBD was funded by the American Institute for Economic Research. It's a libertarian think-tank w/ a mission of "educating Americans on the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government and sound money.”

American Institute for Economic Research - Wikipedia

But I don't see anything about public health there! That's because they focus mainly on economic policies. Per Wikipedia (I know, I know), AIER is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation & due to large fossil fuel investments, are big climate change deniers.

en.wikipedia.org

I tried to get some clarity about their funding from their annual report. That's 5 minutes of my life I won't get back. It's mostly pictures of lots of white people having a blast at various AIER events, w/ an occasional graph on social media metrics. aier.org/wp-content/upl

I am intensely curious what type of event featured this apparent rap battle between two fun-loving AIER members cosplaying Karl Marx and John D. Rockefeller debating the merits of socialism vs free-market capitalism.

Anyway, back to why I think the GBD authors don't actually mean well. The GBD is slickly produced and obviously funded by the AIER. It is a propaganda campaign intended to serve the AIER's aims of "ignore the pandemic, let's get back to making money via unfettered capitalism."

Remember how I said AIER is known to dismiss or minimize the impacts of climate change because of their financial conflicts of interest? Gee, I wonder what could be motivating them to dismiss the severity of this pandemic or exploit uncertainty about herd immunity thresholds?

Let's pretend that I thought "focused protection" was remotely plausible or shared their wack-ass views about herd immunity. Would I stake my professional credibility & join forces with an org that rejects science for the sake of their financial bottom line to get my message out?

No, I would not. Most people motivated by pure altruism wouldn't join what is essentially a propaganda campaign to argue for public health policy changes that amount to "can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" except the omelette is money and the eggs are human lives.

So what is motivating them? Well, I'm sure Drs. Bhattacharya, Gupta, & Kulldorff traveled to AIER's palatial compound in Great Barrington, MA at their own expense to discuss the human condition & their earnest desire to save lives by culling the vulnerable. JK it's money & power

3:40 PM · Oct 14, 2020

"Just out for a stroll on this perfectly manicured lawn outside this stately manor house, talking about saving lives with a half-baked policy proposal that amounts to old or sick people stay home & maybe you won't die. Can't wait to cash the AIER check & meet with POTUS."

These Scientists Have A Controversial Plan For “Herd Immunity” — And The White House Is Listening

Again, it's money and power. As

@stephaniemlee

's excellent reporting shows, the authors of the GBD have been pushing this focused protection bullshit for some time...and have also had some pretty serious conflicts of interest.

buzzfeednews.com

For months, a small group of scientists has pushed policies that mainstream health experts say would cause many more COVID-19 deaths. They just got their biggest audience yet.

All of the authors have used this as leverage to get high-profile pieces in major newspapers, cable news spots, and meetings with governors and senior White House officials, who have made major policy changes as a result. DeSantis reopened Florida businesses based on their views.

While it's unclear if they are getting paid for the GBD (I would be willing to bet that they are), but it's hard to quantify the value of political influence, and they've clearly got that. They met with the White House last week and were rewarded with enthusiastic endorsement.

Which certainly supports the aims of the AIER, who benefit tremendously from unrestricted reopening, the endgame of the GBD's "focused protection" policy. The AIER isn't even focused on economic benefits to society, but rather themselves and their own wealthy benefactors.

The authors are not stupid. They must know how ridiculous and unrealistic "focused protection" is and how difficult it would be to implement. They must know that 10-20% seropositivity in the population is nowhere near herd immunity.

They must know that in Sweden, which is the shining example they always reference for how "focused protection" works, there were more deaths of vulnerable people per capita than anywhere else in Scandinavia and the economy still took an epic beating.

And since they know this, and are still arguing for this strategy that will only be economically beneficial to certain parts of society and are willing to accept hundreds of thousands of deaths as the price of reopening, suggests their motives are self-serving, not altruistic.

And

has been covering this for months, long before the GBD was capital D Declared. Bhattacharya & other prominent signatories of the GBD, including Michael Levitt & David Katz, have been seeking to exert political influence since the spring. buzzfeednews.com/article/stepha

JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly

Despite his insistence that he is science-driven, Bhattacharya also has unreported financial conflicts of interests, going all the way back to a shoddy serosurveillance study that might have been funded by an airline to get people flying again.

buzzfeednews.com

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was...

White House embraces a declaration from scientists that opposes lockdowns and relies on ‘herd...

The result is that the strategy paid off: a fancy website and obnoxiously pompous name has resulted in the White House, led by Scott Atlas, embracing the GBD. They now have a pseudo-scientific justification for the lives lost to their failure.

nytimes.com

I disagree with many scientists frequently and that's part of the process. Everyone is entitled to their opinion & I mostly give people the benefit of the doubt re: motives. But I think the GBD authors know exactly what they are doing. They know this policy will kill people.

While I certainly can't prove anything, the evidence of their thirst for attention and influence is damning. I hope some journalists out there are following the money, because the only other thing to count if this becomes national policy are the bodies of the unnecessary dead.