Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 14 October 2020

Template:COVID19 sanctions

Template:FSS

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Present tense

Hello all- I changed the text of the article from the past to the present tense just now, not because it treats a current event, but because I think that is how we treat documents such as declarations and other written works. I erred on the side of putting the "opponents" sentence in the present perfect, though I'm not sure what the guidance/consensus is on WP for content that describes an ongoing issue. Eric 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have added some categories which may help in comparing this page with other similar cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Some misrepresentation

In the final paragraph this referenced statement is given: Sir Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, said that asking over-65s to shield to slow a second wave would amount to "age-based apartheid". However, the declaration makes no such recommendation. The closest is comes is to suggest that "Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home." It's unfortunate they've used the word "retired" here. Many people retire before the age of 65. Including the statement by Stevens appears to be synthesis, so I've removed it. Arcturus (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

While Wp:SYNTHESIS is prohibited from Misplaced Pages editors, synthesis (and analysis) are exactly what we are looking for in secondary sources that we use. This is therefore exactly the sort of thing we should be relaying, given the prominence of Simon Stevens! Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the comments of Stevens were made before the declaration was announced, so it's not direct reaction to it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Stevens comments were in response to the Gupta/Heneghan letter , so it is indeed not easy to use his remarks here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If RS relates Stevens' comments to the GBD, then so can we - especially if it aids in giving "background, context, and expansion" on the ideas. Per WP:PSCI we are meant to provide mainstream thinking as a context for fringe ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sourced to Science Media Centre blog post

FYI all- Just wanted to let you know that today's large expansion of the Criticism section is sourced to a blog post on the website of Science Media Centre, an organization that some have found to be not necessarily dedicated to objective analysis. A couple articles on the Centre that were used as sources in our article on them: Nature: Science media: Centre of attention, Guardian: "Lobby group 'led GM thriller critics'". Eric 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the section is giving undue weight to criticism. There needs to be a counter-section about support. Just looking at the SMC now - difficult to say if they are a RS. Arcturus (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed large chunks of the SMC material as excessive and probably a copyright violation, and have removed the responses as unsourced original research. Can we please stick to brief well-sourced summaries of reliable sources rather than adding walls of text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying this section up, and also for renaming it - "Responses" is much better. I've added statements of concern from the Max Planck Institute & Ac Med Sci (UK), both being pretty reputable national bodies - hope this OK.Kitb (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Somebody else did the rename, not me. I thought the Max Planck source looked good until I noticed that it predated the declaration so couldn't possibly be a response, so I'm afraid I removed that. It might work as background but that would need discussion here. The Academy source looks good, but I have piped the wikilink to improve the appearance. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems from the discussions among epidemiologists that I have seen that this whole area is less of the polarized 'lockdown versus herd immunity' argument that some people seem to want to frame it as, rather than a 'where on the restriction spectrum should we aim for, and how should that be achieved?' one. The GBD contains no quantitative data, estimates or modelled predictions at all, the only number mentioned is a relative risk (with no absolute anchor). The 'mainstream epidemiologists' have provided quantitative data, as in the Max Planck statement. Is it worth mentioning this background, and citing the MPI paper?Kitb (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see possibilities, but my very strong advice would be to start a new section below to discuss that, and if possible get an agreed text before editing the article itself. The key problem will be avoiding WP:ORIGINAL research. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a "countersection" might fall afoul of WP:GEVAL. What we seem to have here is a bunch of rogue scientists on the one hand, and the full weight of the mainstream consensus on the other. The situation is analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc. Misplaced Pages needs to frame the fringe view only within a mainstream context. I am sure more sourcing will emerge shortly making this more stark. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is hardly a "fringe view", given the list of original signatories. "Rogue scientists" - no they aren't. It might not fit with the current MSM propaganda and the views of other "experts", but given the way things are developing, it's a valid view. We need to maintain WP:NPOV here. This is not a pseudoscience article. Arcturus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I remind you that WP:BLP applies also on talk pages, and that you should be very cautious about using words like "rogue" or making contentious analogies about named individuals unless and until you have direct sourcing to support them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a textbook fringe view, maybe even pseudoscience. I have alerted WP:FT/N accordingly. I think the invocation of "MSM propaganda" rather seals the deal that this is fringe stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. Arcturus (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the difference between James Naismith's statement at SMC, and that reported in The Gaurdian. Editors could pick selected quotes from this source to support a POV, which would be original research. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I put the reference to "rogue scientists" on the BLP Noticeboard. Arcturus (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Just to inject a modicum of clue here: real science is not done by "declaration" no matter how (excuse me while I snigger) "Great" it is proclaimed by its sponsors to be. To adhere to NPOV Misplaced Pages needs to present the mainstream case as such, and fringey dissent needs to be contextualized as just that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • LOL. Great Barrington is the name of the place in which the declaration was signed. Arcturus (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • In a way that makes it sadder, assuming only Americans will get it or plqying on the word "great"!. I happen to live close to the original and best Barrington, famed for its long village green. Still doesn't mean science can be done by declaration! Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Haha, but your Barrington isn't "Great", unlike the one in Gloucestershire (and the US one). It looks like a nice place though. Arcturus (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
        • None has so great a great house as does Barrington. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship 1

In the not-too-distant future this might be a useful subheading - apparently the GBD website has been removed from Google search results, ?Reddit?, etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This needs mentioning in the article, but I'm not sure how it can be sourced. They are definitely removing results that go to the website - I just tried. Arcturus (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly happening, but until we have a reliable source it doesn't belong in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Could the Google search itself be used as the source - I guess it would be a so-called primary source? Arcturus (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It would requuire comparison sof two different primary sources, which is pretty much the definition of WP:OR. The best source I know of is Lockdown Skeptics but that's a partisan blog so wouldn't survive any challenge. I assume that some newspaper commentator will pick up on it eventually so best to wait a few days. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't think it "definitely happening" at all. Minor sites don't show up on Google often. And if some weird SEO stunts have been pulled it might also get penalised. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare and contrast google with duckduckgo and bing. This doesn't explain why it is happening, but that it is happening seems beyond reasonable doubt. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What is happening? It's not that easy to get a site showing on Google search. If you dig you can get results, and Google is crawling the page and cacheing results today. But you can't just set up a random blog (this is Wordpress right?) and expect to get it showing up easily on Google, especially if its content is poor. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well google was showing the page at the top of searches yesterday, though for obvious reasons I didn't bother with a screen capture. But none of this matters until a reliable source reports this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, first hit on all three for me. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Google appear to have seen the error of their ways (I assume they shadow banned it, but perhaps they didn't). The page is now at the top of the search listing, and with less prominence given to the detractors. Arcturus (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's been rising back up the list all day. Fascinating to watch, but careless to leave this support query at position 2. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also seeing it again now (UK) - and at the top; yesterday my searches returned 17 pages of hits, and the site was missing (whereas previously it had appeared), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, it's always fascinating to watch the QAnon loons filling the void with wild theories. Their hysteria over this website not being top hit is a massive red flag: they probably pulled some SEO stunt which failed, and then sent the trolls out to create their usual havoc; it's exceptionally unlikely that these people were genuinely and randomly searching for this particular crock of shit without some specific purpose in mind. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG The "QAnon loons" did it? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. BTW, it's gone again. Search for it on the UK Google site and at the top of the list there are three critical pieces from the MSM, including two from that paragon of impartiality, The Guardian. Arcturus (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's back again. LOL. Whatever the reason for this, Google is not coming out of it well. Someone has put a minor adjustment in the article that should cover the situation. Arcturus (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, no, the QAnon loons are the ones creating wild speculative conspiracy theories about a tiny fringe website that nobody would notice unless they were deliberately looking for it. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight in response section

The "response" section has now grown to 3 times the length of the article itself, and appears to be giving undue weight to critics of the petition. I flagged it as such and reverted a series of edits that made this section even longer while also showing partiality toward the critics. While there should be a section on criticism of the petition, it should strive to maintain a NPOV and balance the attention given to criticisms with the length of the article itself. At present it is growing in a direction that appears to add any and every criticism, no matter its reliability or prominence. Therefore recommending a pause in expanding that section until these issues can be resolved by discussion here. MadScientistDoctor (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Addendum - User:GPinkerton's comments on this article on Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration strongly suggest a pattern of partiality to his additions here that aim to give undue weight to criticisms of the petition. MadScientistDoctor (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The same user User:GPinkerton seems to also have at the same time edited the page of one of the GBD's authors at https://en.wikipedia.org/Sunetra_Gupta in an obvious partisan attempt to lessen the claims of the GBD by selectively adding negative criticism. The user is obviously biased and partisan and is making a mockery of Misplaced Pages's open process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminerthos (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eminerthos, personal attacks are prohibited on Misplaced Pages. Please focus on content, not contributors. — Newslinger talk 05:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

@MadScientistDoctor: Please stop reverting changes. There is no substance to your accusations of NPOV, non-neutrality, or undue weight. If you think the scientists are too much cited, find some reliable sources quoting notable proponents of the document's contents. Please also stop adding primary-sourced information about the numbers of public signatories. It's not pertinent, nor a reliable source, nor quoted by reliable sources. I will restore the article to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines; I do not expect to be reverted again. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please stop stacking the "response" section with non-neutral accounts that give undue weight to critics of the petition. With your edits, this section approaches 4 times the length of the main body of the article itself. The appropriate place to discuss how to balance criticisms with the article is in the talk page above. MadScientistDoctor (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@MadScientistDoctor: It's not stacking, it's proper reporting of what the cited sources say. If you can find conflicting material in reliable sources, go ahead and add it in. This is the talk page, and the appropriate place to discuss it is here. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight. Your additions have unbalanced the article by overemphasizing the opponents of the petition and giving little consideration to the quality, reliability, or prominence of critical views you quote.MadScientistDoctor (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Unlike many of the declaration's signatories, they are all professors of relevant disciplines at top-flight universities, and all have been considered reliable and prominent views by reliable sources, who have deigned them fit to quote. As I fhave said, if reliable sources quote similarly reliable, quality views, they too should be quoted. Otherwise your arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE. GPinkerton (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration -

"The content of the actual Declaration is not important; it's the diverse traction it's received in fringe quarters and the predicable furore over the "let-anyone-and-his-dog sign the damn thing" attitude to the "expert" signatories and the mutually exclusive (ir-)realities inhabited by a Guardian journalist and former Daily Mail's political editor-at-large and far-right Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice's girlfriend-journalist. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)"

"Big if true: Koch brothers nefariousness again: Ahmed, Nafeez (2020-10-09). "Climate Science Denial Network Behind Great Barrington Declaration". Byline Times. Retrieved 2020-10-10. GPinkerton (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)"

Both comments suggest your edits aim to advance a non-NPOV that promotes critics of the petition for largely political reasons. One of the sources you recommend - Nafeez - also appears to be a party to the controversies over the subject of this article, making use of his material non-neutral as well. Again, recommending discussion here in accordance with WP's Undue Weight guidelines before proceeding further with edits to this section. MadScientistDoctor (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone took the whole lot out, but I put it back. It clearly contravenes undue weight, and some, or most of it can go, but we should take it a paragraph at a time and discuss here. Me; it's midnight+ in the UK and I'm off to bed. Perhaps editors in more amenable time zones can take it up? Arcturus (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts -

• Keep brief summaries of criticisms related to "long COVID", uncontrolled infection, and feasibility of targeted protections.
• These should be clearly cited to reputable scientists such as Lechler, McKee, and Hanage. Long quotes of each however and repetitions of them saying similar things add to length and undue weight
• Should try to steer away from criticisms that are more like barbs than substance - so for example the one by Gonsales just calling it "grotesque" doesn't add to the article
• Response section should also note that several members of the SAGE advisory group rejected the recommendations
• Cut the stuff about Mongolian overtone singing etc. That's sensationalist distraction by unnecessary detail. The fake signatures story can be condensed down to a few lines, and also rewritten in a more balanced way. Right now this stuff all reads like tabloid gossip.

MadScientistDoctor (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, except I'd leave out the stuff about fake signatures completely. All such petitions, if opened for public signing, will attract fake signatures. There's nothing noteworthy here. Arcturus (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The signature stuff gets a lot of coverage in RS, therefore omitting it would be a violation of our duty to NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but the problem here is that not only can people sign fake signatures, but they can represent themselves as actual scientists by ticking a box on the input form. A number of news sources have done so and found there was no checking of such. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, which is why it's of interest because the proponents have been trying to make claims for these signatures somehow representing scientific support (when in fact what we know from RS is that this stuff has no scientific support outside the margins). Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"leave out the stuff about fake signatures completely" -- look, are you at all familiar with our core policies? The fake signatures issue has been a prominent aspect of coverage of the declaration. Your own thoughts about whether "all such petitions" will have fake signatures are totally irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is also important because libertarian think tanks have done this before: collecting as many signatures as possible, then pretending the signers are all scientists in a relevant field. See Oregon Petition. It's what the homo economicus would do, being narrowly self-interested, aka a psychopath, if he were only as rational as a libertarian and did not count on being caught. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have direct sourcing, making links of that kind is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH which is why we don't do it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The fake signatures issue is classic straw man stuff. The sources that have covered it appear to have done so to undermine the arguments being proposed by the Declaration - "It's a rotten idea. Just look at all the fake signatures". This is absolutely the case for The Guardian. Regardless, just because certain sources cover it, we are not obliged to do so here. At best (or worst), we should make passing reference to this incidental aspect of the GBD. To have almost a third of the article devoted to it is absurd. Arcturus (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So you think that the people who are doing this use a method that automatically blows up the numbers is not relevant. Fine, that's your opinion. Reliable sources disagree with you, and they are stronger than you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not suggest adding that connetion to the article, I just gave an additional reason why this is important, on top of reliable sources talking about it. So keep your strawmen to yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Please see WP:CIVIL and try to be a little less aggressive. Arcturus (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with that tactic. You have no substantial response, so you flee into tone territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with Oregon Petition

Enough others are editing this I won't, but this is quite reminiscent of 1998's Oregon Petition: petition/declaration organized by think tank, no verification, touting large numbers of signers.

AIER has some history with climate denial, is connected with other think tanks that do that, search for AIER in FOIA Facts 5 - Finds Friends of GWPF, which isn't RS, but has links to the examples by AIER.

Nafeez Ahmed's article claims AIER got $68,100 from Charles Koch Foundation in 2018. That is correct, as seen in the 2018 Charles Koch Foundation Form 990, p.126 JohnMashey (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the above rubs against Misplaced Pages:No_original_research. Future edits should also consider the reliability and impartiality of Nafeez as a source, since he was involved in the signature hoaxing as a participant in this story. MadScientistDoctor (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, since John did not suggest putting it in the article. Users should be made aware that this is similar to other propaganda schemes of free-market anti-science loons, such as the Oregon Petition. WP:FTN has been alerted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but if anyone searches for AIER in my post, there are 4 links, still good, to AIER publications on climate, often by economists, mostly to cast doubt on climate science. So, the blog post isn't RS, but the cited publications are RS about AIER itself. This was from 2013, I haven't followed them since. Other petitions on climate include the or the , but there are many more. used to do these often. There are also ones against Darwinian evolution, such as . By the way, just as many other similar think tanks do, AIER seems very supportive of tobacco companies, i.e.,. against regulation ... which might cause skepticism about any concern with health. try Google: site:https://www.aier.org tobacco. JohnMashey (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Need to Update Number of Signatures to over 300K

As of October 11, 2020, should be 318,916 for General Public. Great Barrington Declaration#Signatories WSDavitt (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You've messed up twice. First putting the wrong figure for the date (Oct 9), and now falsely giving the date of the newspaper reports as Oct 11 (it was Oct 9). If was fine before. I'll let somebody else clean up ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have repaired this and tidied up the "as of" sentence. OK now? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Characterization of AIER in intro

Hello Buidhe and all: I again removed the characterization of AIER as a "libertarian think tank" from the intro sentence. Regardless of how people or the institute itself categorize its politics, that definition does not belong in the first sentence. For many readers, it could qualify their take on the topic from the outset and affect how they consider the declaration, which an encyclopedia should avoid. We should first endeavor to present objectively what the declaration puts forth, and reserve analysis of the source for later in the article. And keep in mind, AIER merely provided the venue for the meeting, which we are bound, as disinterested editors, to keep separate from how the institute is viewed politically. To see how the doctors address this very point, I would encourage anyone who has not done so already to watch the video of the three doctors presenting the declaration. Note especially the responses of Bhattacharya and Gupta at minutes 13:20 and 19:48 to the interviewer's questions about their politics. Eric 16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's probably a necessary characterisation for NPOV, since this is a feature of how RS covers this topic. I oppose the removal of it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We give the fullname and a wikilink, which should be enough. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Some RS cover it; this one doesn't . Arcturus (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely belongs in the first sentence as necessary context; few people will know what AIER is beforehand so it is important to introduce it. Readers will draw conclusions as they see fit. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe. Its name could be mistaken for a government or quasi-government agency, rather than a mere lobby group. GPinkerton (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Koch and climate change denial text later is probably a bit overdone, not sure you could find a property rights org that didn't have some Koch funding or at least skirted the edges of climate science. But definitely need some context to understand the group that's supporting the declaration. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's overdone; climate change and covid are the biggest fronts in the war between science and irreason and it worth noting (even if not surprising) that the Koch network is fighting on both of them. GPinkerton (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A definition of AIER does not belong in the first sentence. AIER provided the venue; they did not present the declaration. It was presented by the three doctors and several dozen medical doctors and PhDs, whom we cannot presume to be libertarian lobbyists. The intro sentence should introduce the topic, which is the declaration, not the owner of the facility where it was drawn up. Eric 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: The characterization of "AIER provided the venue; they did not present the declaration" is not the half of it. The AIER owns the domain on which the declaration is hosted. We don't need to presume, we can look at their published work. Oh, I don't mean the science, I mean the anthology libertarian opinion pieces in right-wing media. The three authors don't have a single peer-reviewed paper on COVID-19 between them, and we must be careful not to describe them as experts. GPinkerton (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, that's a pretty non-neutral argument to drag into the article. These are WP:RSOPINION sources and using them in this manner isn't appropriate. fiveby(zero) 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: What argument is non-neutral and which have I "dragged into the article"? Surely you can't mean that the authors' own opinion pieces can't be used to state their own opinion? I'm speaking about the Telegraph and WSJ opinion pieces they themselves wrote. GPinkerton (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

oh, i was referring to the Byline Times, Wired, and Guardian pieces as RSOPINION, which shouldn't be used for factual statements. fiveby(zero) 18:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Byline Times] doesn't look all that reliable, and the Guardian article simply links to it when mentioning climate denial and Koch Foundation. Regardless both are WP:RSOPINION. fiveby(zero) 21:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eric:, do you object to 'libertarian', 'think tank', or both? I don't see anything that isn't neutral, the purpose of the group is advocacy and promotion of certain issues, and i'm pretty sure that the libertarian-leaning groups have been on the "herd immunity" push for awhile. Maybe suggest some other text? fiveby(zero) 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it belongs there. People read "institute" and "research", and there are scientists signing the declaration, so they erroneously assume that the institute does real science, additionally to economics. But libertarian think tanks are traditionally opposed to science, if they do not like the consequences of its results. This connection is important. Libertarian think tanks have bamboozled the public for decades about climate change, tobacco, and other subjects, and we should not let them get away with it anymore and actually help them doing it by hiding information. (Yes, I know, there are users who do want that.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I don't object to those terms. GPinkerton, this article is about the proposal put forth in the declaration, not about what we think AIER's angle, reputation, or science credentials might be. My point, as I tried to express above, is that the first sentence of an article about a proposal should introduce the proposal, not define the organization that provided the venue for its conception, or hosted the proposal's website, nor attempt to characterize the overall motivation of that organization. As I stated above, we can place AIER in a political context further down in the article. Hob Gadling, it is not our role to protect people from making invalid assumptions. If readers want to know who's behind AIER, they can look it up. We should stick to describing the proposal first, then make any appropriate analysis of motivations afterwards. Eric 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: this article is about the proposal put forth in the declaration no, on the contrary, the article is about the declaration itself, and all the historical and political circumstances that engendered it. That includes the organization that issued the declaration, the AIER. If readers want to know who's behind AIER, they can look it up. Surely, but if readers want to know about the Great Barrington Declaration, and they look it up, and it doesn't highlight and give a brief background to the parent organization that produced the document as well as its named authors, then the readers will be left uninformed and the article will be the poorer. GPinkerton (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, agree Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eric, why do you want to hide this fact? It's plainly relevant - it's one of the Koch think tanks, and they are responsible for a large proportion of anti-science bullshit where science conflicts with commercial interests. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, JzG, it seems you are not thoroughly reading what I wrote. I don't know how to make it clearer for you. The issue that I brought into discussion here is the content of the intro sentence. Eric 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: I have read it, understood it, and disagreed with it. We need to know who, what, when, where, why, and who paid straight away. GPinkerton (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nicely put. But maybe what the readers primarily "need" to know is what the declaration proposes. Eric 01:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: That's no more or less significant than who proposed it, or when, or where. How would you frame it? GPinkerton (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles should contain what reader primarily need to know, as well as what they secondarily need to know. You have not yet answered the question why you want to hide that fact behind a link. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

it is not our role to protect people from making invalid assumptions It is not our role to mislead them into doing it by omitting information. Misplaced Pages articles should be written in a way people understand. If people can be expected to draw wrong conclusions from a Misplaced Pages article, the writers should try to improve the text to prevent that. Why don't you want to do that? Why do you want readers to draw wrong conclusions? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I have written here, nor any edits I have made, would imply that I want to hide anything or mislead anyone. You are making invalid inferences. Once again, I suggest that you read what I wrote above thoroughly, this time for comprehension. Eric 10:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

My contribution was a response to the paragraph beginning with "I don't object to those terms", so it has to be indented accordingly. I corrected that.

You were explicitly against "protect people from making invalid assumptions". So, yes, you are against an action that would prevent misleading people. You are saying it is alright with you if people get a wrong impression after reading the article. And you want to hide the "libertarian think tank" in the wikilink. So, yes, things you have written do imply that. You have given no valid reason for hiding the information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello all- Buidhe, who you will note has yet to participate in this discussion, has now added the text libertarian think tank to the intro sentence for the fourth time in less than 24 hours. I have reverted two of those edits. As you know, I find the placement in the intro sentence to be inappropriate. I hope others will agree, regardless of their position, that Buidhe's third revert is inappropriate, and will undo it. Eric 11:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, there is an informal majority in favour of its inclusion, so at the moment it's best to leave it. I find the inclusion troubling, and even more troubling is the longer statement in the lead about the Institute. A !vote is needed here. I'll kick it off.

Remove reference to the objectives of the AIER from the lead:

• Support. The article is not about the institute. If mention of its objectives are necessary, it should be as incidental material elsewhere in the article, but probably not at all. Arcturus (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NOTAVOTE applies, so this is disruptive and I urge editors not to get sucked in. The correct procedure would be a WP:RFC but I think that would be premature. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I know it's not a vote. That's why I called it a !vote, i.e. a poll. See above, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since the line-wrap pulled off the exclamation mark from the word 'vote'. As for it being disruptive, no. This is a common way of resolving disputes. To describe it as disruptive is tendentious. RFC is over the top and overly bureaucratic for this level of disagreement. Arcturus (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Alexbrn is correct that notavote applies. The text is not currently in the article, but anyone who believes that there is consensus for inclusion can add it back in. (t · c) buidhe 11:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You should have just left it. However, now that you've reverted, it's probably best to leave it out until we do get a consensus one way or the other. Arcturus (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    In other words, it will stay out because you will not consent. This is not how it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nafeez Ahmed as a source

Question - should this article be relying upon Nafeez Ahmed as a news source about the declaration? Reason is Ahmed appears to be deeply involved in the fake signature story against the declaration. See . He's a part of the story that he's also "reporting" on, so that needs to be acknowledged in some way. Ropedygold (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That was obviously a test on his side: can I smuggle a fake name in? Yes I can, so I can write about it. Nothing wrong with that.

The story is not "the declaration contains fake signatures", it is "the people who started it made it easy to add fake signatures". Ahmed tested the reliability of the declaration, and it failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Expanded list of signatories

This edit adds selected signatories as provided by AEIR, which has the rather POV effect of making the support look "science-y" via credentials. Anybody with dodgier credentials is omitted. This has rather an unfortunate POV effect. I don't think we should be picking/selecting signatories without some secondary sourcing to lend due WP:WEIGHT to that selection. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also fluffy -- strikes me as filler. I imagine a nobler intention could be identified, but in the end I don't think it does anything useful for the reader. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I thought that since most of even the expert signatories are not medically (per se) qualified it actually has the opposite effect, as well as the issue of needing to quote the (much better) academic credentials of it numerous critics. The Wikilinked signatories in the lead are not biographized here. There does need to be some suggestion of the (limited) number of (vaguely) credible people to have initially signed, otherwise the political impact is unexplained; why would such a thing get so much attention if there wasn't a kernel of sciencey something (i.e. the original three dozen or so actual dissenting experts somewhat relevantly qualified to comment)? GPinkerton (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Matt Strauss

(moved from wrong page) GPinkerton is this edit you changed Matt Strauss's position from "assistant professor" to "professor" (which implies full professorship). He's not one per the ref you removed; here's how he refers to himself. Can you explain your change? Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: No I can't, it must have been someone else's that somehow became mine in an edit conflict without my seeing it. I was not aware and I hereby disown that part of the edit. GPinkerton (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is also not the right page! GPinkerton (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspected as much. I must say, I've noticed the Wikimedia software doing some odd things today (watchlist going back in time?) so I'm not surprised either. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Washington Examiner

From WP:RSP: "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." The claims here are conspiracist in nature and relate to living people. It's really not a good enough source for this, and other, better sources exist. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: The issue is that the relevant people (i.e. Nafeez Ahmed) spoke to the Examiner. The whole issue of his expose is in that article (as well as his own (basically self-published) article). The actual article itself and most of it interviewees were laughably slanted though. GPinkerton (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Slanted text in the writeup

1. This sentence in the opening section is extremely slanted: "Critics of the declaration believe the proposed strategy is dangerous and unworkable, asserting that it would be impossible to shield those who are medically vulnerable, and that the herd immunity component of the strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity."

It is slanted because the science underlying all vaccines is that the body develops extended resistance that lasts even when antibodies die down eg: T-cell resistance, which is known to last for decades. Resistance is not exactly the same as immunity, but means that you are unlikely to get *seriously* ill even if re-exposed, which is functionally all that is needed. If wikipedia is going to reproduce the claim (which has no evidence, and contradicts the entire science of vaccine development) that the body has "limited duration" covid immunity, then you need to add that if this assertion is true for covid, vaccine development for covid will be pointless. Here is just one of many papers that note the existance of long-lasting T-cell resistance. T-cell resistance is a fundamental of immunology. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What rubbish! I suppose this is why making new flu vaccines is completely unnecessary and why there's no need to repeat rabies vaccinations ... GPinkerton (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't shut down society for the flu. And most people dont die of it, any more than they die of covid, even without the vaccine. So to claim that we must lockdown due to "limited duration" of covid resistance is not medically supportable, and is in fact "rubbish". That's the point. Modailkoshy (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

We don't shut down society for the flu 1.) It's a good thing you're not in charge, 2.) flu behaves completely differently to covid-19, so that favourite method of argumentation by logical fallacy does not work in this case (or others), 3.) you're also arguing by strawman, 4.) medicine does not recognize your equation of dead=dead, not-dead=medically-in-perfect-health, 5.) THERE IS ALREADY A VACCINE FOR FLU. They have to make a new one every year, and every new pandemic. If flu emerged tomorrow and the entire human species was immunologically naïve we most certainly would shut down society or get it shut down for us. What is the problem you have with the way the article is written? GPinkerton (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought one of the rules here was to be civil. Apparently you haven't read the rules. Moving on - You are arguing a strawman yourself, because in this case, the topic is not a novel virus, but "limited duration of post-infection immunity" ie: the assumption here is that a person has already been infected, but then is highly vulnerable again, very soon. There is zero evidence to support this, and were this hypothesis true, a vaccine wouldn't work either, for the same reason - unless you are imagining people getting vaccinated every few months. So my problem is as I stated it before - this evidence-free assertion (or please cite a paper showing it is true) would make a covid vaccine irrelevant. (On a related but different note - flu viruses are extremely simple and mutate rapidly, which coronaviruses don't - and we see that with covid-19, which has had very limited and non-impactful mutations.) Modailkoshy (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

Incorrect. For one, SARS-CoV-2 has already mutated to be more transmissible. the assumption here is that a person has already been infected, but then is highly vulnerable again, very soon Yes that is the assumption, and because no evidence says otherwise, that is the assumption that should always be made, as it is the case in numerous infections. And yes, people do have to be vaccinated against flu every few months, so they'd be nothing extraordinary about that. In any case, we have quoted multiple reliable sources quoting numerous reliable experts as saying they are concerned and that it is dangerous, so your argument has no substance. Everything else is irrelevant. GPinkerton (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

most people dont die of it, any more than they die of covid, even without the vaccine Ah, then it's OK. As long those who die are not in the majority, it does not matter... --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sunstantial Mis-statement of Gupta's position in the writeup

This sentence has a significant error in the writeup: Gupta is NOT talking about herd immunity as a strategy, but about Focused Protection. This needs to be fixed, it is a substantial misrepresentation of her position.

Current sentence - Gupta said that "the alternative , which is to keep suppressing the virus, comes at an enormous cost to the poor and to the young and not just in this country but worldwide", arguing that the herd immunity threshold for SARS-CoV-2 will be reached in December 2020

It should be corrected to read -

Gupta said that "the alternative , which is to keep suppressing the virus, comes at an enormous cost to the poor and to the young and not just in this country but worldwide", arguing that the herd immunity threshold for SARS-CoV-2 will be reached in December 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, this is a direct quote from a reliable source. The clarifyier "" is not part of the source quoted, but "the alternative " is. Gupta is not talking about two different strategies here, but rather about the prevailing mainstream science strategy of infection suppression until herd immunity can be brought about in the conventional fashion by mass vaccination programmes, just the same as every other transmissable disease. GPinkerton (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Modailkoshy (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

Could you provide the reliable source, please? I believe your statment is incorrect. All 3 experts have been clear that 'herd immunity' is not a strategy but a biological fact, and the 2 strategies in question are either Focused Protection or Lockdown. This point has been made repeatedly by them, so Gupta could not be referring to Herd Immunity in that sentence. See this video, which is an interview with all 3 of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE&feature=emb_logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See the RS cited all over the article at present. See specifically the source to which the material is cited, and t which it was quoted. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The "reliable source" is merely making an assumption about what she means. An assumption is not a source at all, let alone a reliable one. Modailkoshy (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

So ask for The Hill to correct the article accordingly. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jay Bhattacharya's medical credentials are missing in Author section

In the Author section, Jay Bhattacharya's medical credentials are totally missing. (Kulldorf's and Gupta's are mentioned.)

The para on him should be edited to include this highly relevant information - He is a Professor of Medicine whose research is focused on the economics of health care with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Source: https://profiles.stanford.edu/jay-bhattacharya

Modailkoshy (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

Response section missing WHO has just come out strongly AGAINST lockdowns.

WHO has just come out unequivocally against lockdowns. (Quotations taken from video whose link is provided below) This is very important new information that needs to be included in this section.

Dr David Nabarro, the WHO's Special Envoy on Covid-19: "And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it… remember, lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."

"We in the WHO do NOT advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to rebalance, regroup, protect your health workers who are exhausted. But by and large, we'd rather not do it."

Full Spectator video interview link here, segment with Dr Nabarro starts at 15:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Post and news.com.au, Reprints of Epoch Times, and Express doesn't mention Barrington. Should probably wait a bit on this. fiveby(zero) 22:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I provided the original video above, from Spectator TV, featuring Dr Nabarro. His interview starts at 15:00. So this is a primary source. Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE Modailkoshy (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

Funny, but you've got this all wrong. Nabarro is not representing the WHO. His purpose is to represent the British Conservative Party government at the WHO. Chronic misinterpretation! He also has a side-line in being one of six special envoys of the WHO's D-G. So no, there isn't a shred of evidence the extraordinary claim that the "WHO has just come out unequivocally against lockdowns". GPinkerton (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you've DEFINITELY not read the rules about civility. So let me take on your persona for after responding on the substance which is - It's entirely your interpretation that being a WHO covid envoy is his sideline, as opposed to his main role. And if you listen to the video he is clearly speaking for WHO. He repeatedly uses the phrase "We at the WHO." So now to respond as you do - It is clear that you are a pro-lockdown fanatic, and are biasing Misplaced Pages in that direction. Fine, you and your ilk are being very rapidly discredited. Unfortunately, you are discrediting Misplaced Pages in the process. Go right ahead and embed your bias. The truth is emerging in spite of the best efforts of unscientific people like you 23:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy

@Modailkoshy: Aha, and now you've declared yourself! Fine, run along and breed contempt for science elsewhere. This is an encyclopaedia not the sort of Heartland Institute coffee morning that produced this execrable document. Try and WP:RGW somewhere else, somehow else. GPinkerton (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's funny. My science credentials are impeccable, and include a degree from one of the hardest universities in the world to get into (much harder than Harvard or Stanford), and a very illustrious career in science and tech. But go ahead and create contempt for science with your bias, it's a sad fact of life these days, but happily the truth is emerging faster than you can suppress it. 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs)

Sure, sure, I believe you. Keep repeating that. Until then, Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, where do you find "his purpose is to represent the British Conservative Party government"? It's pretty clear his job is to speak for the WHO. fiveby(zero) 23:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: He was nominated by the government and was backed by them in his failed bid to become D-G in 2017. He's also described as "our man in the WHO" by The Telegraph. In any case, if he were really representative of the idea that "WHO has just come out unequivocally against lockdowns", a thing against all infectious disease science since the second plague pandemic, don't you think this ground-shattering about-face in medicine would be reported in writing somewhere? GPinkerton (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can see those that are reporting it, and i would hope those that are not are doing what news orgs should and trying to put things on firmer ground by maybe confirming or not? fiveby(zero) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: When the search results are dominated by RT, the Express, the Mail, the NYP, and Fox and not one credible source, you know the whole thing is gross distortion and not worth the paper it's not printed on ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources reporting this, and how they were reporting it, are why I said "wait". Here's a bit more balanced coverage from ABC Austrailia. Notice Barrington is not mentioned. We should be able to evaluate the WP:NEWSORG coverage and recognize the political motivate crap, then wait it out until there is enough good balanced coverage for an NPOV article. fiveby(zero) 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkertonYour contempt for 3 of the world's top experts from 3 of the world's top universities by referring to their work as "an execrable document" should disqualify you from editing this page. You are far too biased to be permitted on this page. @fiveby I request that you disallow GPinkerton from editing this page.

GPinkerton i disallow your from editing this page! fiveby(zero) 23:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Modailkoshy: I could have typed that "work" in an afternoon. Let's see these so-called experts' peer-reviewed work on Covid-19, shall we, and see whether there's ground for contempt. GPinkerton (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Real scientists do not need such chest-beating, and if they did use it, their peers would just laugh at them and stop taking them seriously. Real scientists use solid reasoning instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The WHO page WHO Director-General’s Special Envoys on COVID-19 makes it fairly clear that Dr David Nabarro is an official spokesman for WHO with responsibility to "Disseminate WHO guidance on COVID-19 ...Partake in high-level advocacy and political engagement ... Provide strategic advice". His credentials seem excellent as, for example, "He was appointed, by the Director-General of WHO, as chair of the expert group on the reform of WHO’s work on outbreaks and emergencies in 2015." But it's not clear that he has commented on the Great Barrington declaration or vice versa, so his statements seem to be in parallel. Perhaps the page needs a See also section for such related topics. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • His medical credentials look irrelevant, but in any case this guy is not an "official spokesman for WHO". This whole "The WHO has ..." is not right. Officials within the WHO structure (of which there are many) can say whatever they like, and it may well be nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • He's a spokesman for the WHO. Given his current remit, which I'm sure everyone here is familiar with, his views on such matters as 'lockdowns' are relevant and should be reported here. I'm not sure what you mean by "his medical credentials look irrelevant" - in what way might they not be relevant? Arcturus (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • False: he's one of six "special envoys" to the DG. The WHO positions are decided by members and would be communicated through its press office. As to credentials, a former "Lecturer in Nutrition and Public Health" has not the relevant skill set for being a quotable expert here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
        • He was a lecturer in his early career in the 1980s but that's over 30 years ago and he's now a professor at Imperial College. He's so distinguished and notable that our article about him was created 15 years ago. It makes it quite clear that he's a heavyweight expert with much practical experience of these matters. For example, "Senior UN system coordinator for avian and human influenza ... Special envoy on Ebola (2014–15) ... Head of UN's response to cholera in Haiti (2016–17)".

I watched the interview. The overall programme seems fairly intelligent and balanced but is focussed mainly on the UK and Ireland. The views of Professor Gupta and the Great Barrington declaration are briefly mentioned but are not the focus of much comment. Nabarro's name for his preferred policy is the "Middle Way" which has three components:

1. testing / contact-tracing / isolation
2. local actors and organisation
3. community engagement and cooperation – bringing the people with you

He's quite strong in emphasising that lockdowns should just be temporary measures to give some breathing space and that they need to be limited as their other effects are severe for poor people.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, he's obviously become an adept bureaucrat within the WHO (and the UK benefits from having such operators), and yes what he actually said is quite sensible. But his view doesn't amount to the "WHO adopts Barrington and flips to reject lockdowns!!!" fake news that is doing the rounds. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Overblown and wilful misinterpretation of his words, allied with inflation of his importance and the significance of his statements, all relying on the strawman allegation that the WHO wants everyone to stay at home for ever or that lock-down was somehow the primary strategy. (Remember the "test, test, test"?) GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Co-signers

The 200-word paragraph on co-signers is undue and cites the primary source press-release itself. Many declarations and public letters have co-signers (the existence of which is to give the declaration an appearance of authority), who aren't enumerated like we've done here. Publications covering this declaration do not spend 200-words listing the co-signers so it is WP:UNDUE. Possibly the details of the co-signers is being given more coverage in our article because of the controversy over the open list of signatures, which appears to be worthless. I suggest it be abbreviated to something like "The declaration was co-signed by 34 other academics belonging to a variety of disciplines." and the whole section collapsed into another. -- Colin° 07:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This big shopping list is not helpful. (This is discussed above in the "Expanded list of signatories" section). Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Colin, see also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

New Source: SBM

• David Gorski (12 October 2020). "The Great Barrington Declaration: COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and climate science deniers". Science-Based Medicine.

At last a decent MEDRS/RS on this topic, which is a relief. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Alexbrn#BRD for a discussion on this source, which should be continued here by interested parties. Arcturus (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The mere fact that the writer of this piece describes the GBD authors as COVID-deniers should be enough to disqualify it from featuring in this article. It's a preposterous statement from someone who's clearly out to push his own agenda, an agenda currently being supported by Misplaced Pages. Arcturus (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should publish your own blog and we can use that? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be at least as relevant as the guff from SBM. Arcturus (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

or maybe it is because they are? Lets not allow our personal opinions into this, we all have themSlatersteven (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, you really think those three scientists could be COVID-deniers? Arcturus (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

David Gorski is a surgical oncologist, there is plenty of criticism by qualified experts with related published works. This is WP:UNDUE opinion. fiveby(zero) 15:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He is (as should be obvious from the piece) an expert on fake science and the intersection of politics and medical news - so is eminently qualified. This is probably the best secondary source we have on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

But we're not talking about fake science here, much as you and others from the Fringe Noticeboard camp think that we are. Arcturus (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare to the criticism from those qualified to speak on the matter, to the politically motivated crap in opinion pieces. Read the comments of James Naismith in that link. Misplaced Pages's policies are pretty clear here. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a hitpiece on a blog and nothing more.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some of you are clearly aching for a sanctions/enforcement discussion... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Including you, it would appear. The disputed text has been added and reverted several times, but you're still at it. Arcturus (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, editors are reminded that any number of intersecting sets of special sanctions apply to this page. Per NPOV we have a special duty to make sure fringe science is prominently identified a such, and avoid falling into a WP:GEVAL trap. Source such as this are, per WP:PARITY the best route to achieve that NPOV. See also WP:RSP for a specific entry on Science-Based Medicine as a source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • This is not fringe science. Arcturus (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh it's fringe alright. The SBM source makes that clear. Or maybe, as Gabriel Scally put it, it's "a bonkers idea". Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
          • We have two major RS that both use the word "fringe" in their write-up of the issue. As for fringe science or not, it's not science at all. At 500 words, it can't be anything more than a political opinion. If it were any shorter, it would be a Tweet. If it were science it would have footnotes. As it is the whole sorry affair is nothing more than a vacuous statement of right-wing oppositionism with a get-together-cum-photo-shoot at a neo-con country club, a Republican Party soiree in Washington with some more-established government denialists, and an online petition consisting of three dozen genuine academics of questionable relevance and some media attention. As we know, such things do not usually constitute science as conventionally understood. GPinkerton (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Koch funding subclause in the lead needs looking at

In describing AIER as "a libertarian think tank funded by billionaire Charles Koch's conservative Koch Foundation", the article lead somewhat overstates the extent to which AIER is Koch-funded. Here's what Ahmed actually says:

... sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries. ... Corporate records filed with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) confirm that the AIER operates as part of a Koch-funded network of climate science deniers who see environmental regulation as a threat to its vision of unfettered, deregulated markets. The latest available IRS documents reveal that in 2018, the AIER received $68,100 for “General Operating Support” from the Charles Koch Foundation, which acts on behalf of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch. ... Through their various foundations and other entities, Charles and his brother, the late David Koch, are well-known for being among the world’s biggest founders of climate science denial. The AIER itself is no stranger to such denialism. All its climate change related reports and commentaries are studiously dedicated to downplaying the severity of climate risks and obfuscating the science around human exploitation of oil, gas and coal in driving current global warming levels. ... AIER owns a major investment firm, American Investment Services Inc., which harnesses the think-tank’s research to help inform investment advice. Security Exchange Commission filings seen by Byline Times confirm that AIER’s American Investment Services Inc. runs a private fund valued at $284,492,000. The most recent SEC document filed in August reveals that the fund’s holdings include a wide range of companies including: Chevron, ExxonMobil, General Electric, One Gas Inc, Duke Energy Corp, Northwestern Corp, WEC Energy, Xcel Energy, tobacco giant Philip Morris International, JP Morgan Chase, Visa Inc., Mastercard, Alphabet Inc (the owner of Google), Microsoft, McDonalds, Verizon Communications, Intel Corp, Nike Inc, consumer goods giant Procter and Gamble, Host Hotels & Resorts, Dow Inc., Pepsico, the major stock market advisors Vanguard Group, and many more. This context, none of which is acknowledged on the Great Barrington Declaration website, suggests that it is less the product of a rigorous, reliable and impartial scientific process, than the outcome of an opaque lobbying effort.

$68,000 two years ago is peanuts relative to their overall budget, so I suggest this "funded by" wording could do with looking at. I'd rather mention that they downplay climate change (a claim that a look at their website readily confirms) and invest (to what extent?) in fossil fuel than make a statement about their funding sources that goes beyond even what Ahmed has alleged. --Andreas JN466 17:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they may get their real money elsewhere, that's not what "funded by" means. The fact is that a well-known "philanthropist" has seen fit to supply his wealth and political patronage ("funded") to endorse the organization's aims and methods with Koch's own public gesture. The Guardian source cited uses near identical wording, calling it: "a libertarian thinktank funded by the Koch Foundation". I also like the term opaque lobbying effort, if you'd like to use that as well. GPinkerton (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am aware of the Guardian source, as I first added it to the article. I still think that you're overstating what Ahmed says. You say in your edit summary "funding sustained and ongoing, pluperfect inappropriate". Ahmed mentions a single payment of $68,100 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2018, which is about 0.2% of AIER's assets. Do you have a source for "sustained and ongoing"? Without a source, it's just not credible. And by the way, "has received" is present perfect, not pluperfect. ;) --Andreas JN466 20:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a weekend seminar, a Sunday photo-shoot, a press conference, and web petition costs more than seventy grand? It says on their website they're affiliated with Koch foundation, along with the Atlas Network and the Ayn Rand Institute, Cato Institute, etc. etc. GPinkerton (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmed is not saying that the Charles Koch Foundation paid for the Great Barrington Declaration stunt. He said that AIER received $68k from the Kochs two years ago – nothing to do with this event, or declaration. Thank you very much though for the link to AIER's acknowledgement of Charles Koch Institute funding for AIER's Bastiat Society, which they describe as their "central outreach program". That along with the Atlas Network connection bears out your assertion of "sustained and ongoing" funding, and I'm feeling more sanguine about the present wording. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, the relevance is rather obvious. The Koch think tank network is responsible for using exactly the same playbook on climate change. Do you think that the right would ever allow us to carry an article on a petition organised by a group funded by Soros, without mentioning it in the lead? And in fact the funding by Philip Morris and Exxon should also be in there. This is an absolutely classic corporate shill think-tank. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I couldn't agree more with you about the relevance. That is why I twice added those sources. I am trying to make sure that the wording the article uses is robustly covered by the sources we cite, and in line with verifiable facts. Anything else provokes a plausible-sounding discourse about bias that muddies the issues. So, if in doubt, I'd rather use cautious wording that is less susceptible to having holes poked in it. (FWIW, AIER has responded to this aspect of Ahmed's report here.) Cheers, --Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, there are a lot of sources that discuss their funding, so their spat with Ahmed is pretty much irrelevant. And "libertarian think tank is funded by dark money" is probably the least surprising thing about any of this. Grifters gonna grift, and indeed grifters gonna come up with all manner of pious excuses when caught grifting. That's how it works. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I searched for Koch + AIER and I found zilch in news searches on DDGo and Google, except for pieces published in the last couple of days. What good sources are you aware of? The American Institute for Economic Research article could do with them. --Andreas JN466 00:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Ahmed has published a follow-up article going into some more detail: --Andreas JN466 15:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

See also notes I added to . AIER has gotten money for Atlas, as well. Year 2018 Form 990s are the last available for many, although 2019's should be appearing soon. JohnMashey (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about finances, in part due to the unusual financial structure, unlike anything I've seen in studying Koch-related think tanks. AIER is a 501(c)(3) "public charity" but owns American Investment Services, Inc. AIER may own some of the assets in AIS, but certainly not all, as it is an asset management service for others. AIER publishes its Form 990s, so here is 2019's, which conveniently shows summary for 2018 as well. Charles Koch gave $61K in 2018, Atlas gave $54,133. In 2018, they had $184M Total assets, $85M liabilities, $99M Net assets, and on operating basis lost $2.9M, which seems odd. That year they got $1.3M in investment income and $806K in grants, of which $122K came from Koch+Atlas. Presumably some of their assets are in AIS, but it is nontrivial to figure out what's going on. I've never seen one of these (nonprofit) think tanks run a (for-profit(?)) asset management company for others.JohnMashey (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

2018 seems to be the year they hired Jeffrey Tucker and started spending a lot on social media promotion. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please take a moment to read Ahmed properly. He does not say that the bulk of AIER's funding comes from Koch, he goes out of his way to say that they earn most of their money from their own $285m investment fund, with holdings in fossil fuel, tobacco etc. What he does say in addition is that AIER is "embedded in a Koch-funded network" – the network is thus funded, not AIER itself, Ahmed says – and I have taken trouble to add those points of Ahmed's to the article. The fact is AIER is simply wealthy enough by itself. By over-egging the Koch funding angle you are doing the article – and indeed Ahmed himself, who is cited, but was more perspicacious in what he said – a disservice. It's one thing to preach to the choir; it's another to write in such a way that people on both sides of a fence can agree that it's true and relevant: and isn't that our aim? I'll not revert again, but can you not see the point? --Andreas JN466 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have said already, The Guardian is also cited, and uses the same "funded by" wording that Ahmed does. Your arguments are not convincing. GPinkerton (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship 2

Can anyone please explain why I am prohibited from adding to this topic? I am a qualified editor, with relevant education and experience to the topic, and a clinical assistant professor at University of Kansas school of medicine. I am also one of the signatories to the Declaration. This topic is in the news and much new information has been added in the past twenty-four hours, including the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns. Please Misplaced Pages, don't follow Google, Youtube and the rest of Big Tech down the censorship hole. Doctorglenntaylor@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1111z (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ECP. As a signatory, you also have a WP:COI so should not be editing the article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, you have made fewer than 500 edits in total, so you fail to meet the minimum experience threshold. You can of course make suggestions here for possible edits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You're not listed as a 'co-signer', so if you're merely someone who signed the online declaration then there's no COI. As per above, you'll need to have 500 edits under your belt to edit this article. However, suggest an edit here and we'll try and implement it. Arcturus (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

the influence of the Declaration on the WHO's 180 in its position on lockdowns is complete nonsense. There has been no "180" and reports to the contrary are at best tabloid or misinformation, verging on outright disinformation. (What the Anglo-Saxons called "lying".) There has been no influence whatsoever on the WHO by the AIER, neither should there be. Notions of censorship and Big Tech are just the usual campaign babble emanating from the fringes. As for volunteer anaesthesiologists, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore … GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I just can't understand why this search doesn't produce any results... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Or why the relevant link here is a 404: . GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed this:

Google reportedly censored the declaration, removing it from the search results presented to users in most English-speaking countries, and instead directing them to articles critical of the declaration.

The reason is that (a) it's not true, at least for me, (b) this is not a very good source, and (c) the other sources I've seen are even worse. Google Search is famous for not messing with rankings, so claims that they're deliberately suppressing a new site are extraordinary claims, and they therefore require evidence in excess of just a political reporter hearing a Redditor's speculation. It's perfectly normal for a brand-new site to take a few days to get indexed and rise through the results.

I am specifically removing this claim because it is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. "Hey, some people thought it one web search engine was slow about indexing the website promoting this, and they ascribed nefarious reasons for the delay" is not something you'd expect to see if you were reading this 10 or 20 years later, so it doesn't belong in the article.

If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Re a), did you happen to read #Censorship_1 above? The site came back into Google's search results sometime today, but was most definitely missing in action yesterday. See also . --Andreas JN466 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that it wasn't showing up in some people's (always personalized) search results at various points in time. That does not mean that there was any censorship going on. More to the point, the fact that a few users have asked about this does not mean that this is something that most reliable sources about this subject are even mentioning. Due weight requires us to have more than user complaints and someone in a minor political magazine writing that David Icke and his conspiracy theories shouldn't be removed from YouTube. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then and will see if further more substantial sources appear. :) --Andreas JN466 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If we see a lot more coverage of this, then I'd be happy to reconsider, but we're not there yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a junk article, and shouldn't be cited here, but it's on par with the Byline Times piece that's used. WhatamIdoing, you just used a Wired opinion piece for statements of fact, how would that be different than if i were to use this Journal opinion piece in the same manner? Hey, i could say the WHO is now "recommending" the "focused protection" approach, seems like the way WP article are written. fiveby(zero) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm less than thrilled about all the sources at the moment. I've been reading through them. I've been wondering whether we can cut things down to the handful of best sources, but I think that those "best sources" may not have been written yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced it, but with an alternative source. It's an important aspect of the subject and needs mentioning. Arcturus (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a Zero Hedge reprint, no way. fiveby(zero) 21:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, what's the evidence that this speculation about Google's behavior is an important aspect of this declaration? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph (AUS) (paywalled): "Big Tech is hiding the truth about lockdowns" ... As late as Monday, plugging "Great Barrington Declaration" into Google produced a page of results all sceptical of the document, including articles from left-wing, pro-lockdown publications ... (Google snippet) --Andreas JN466 23:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Google say no censorship and that it's just because the site was new: "It can take a little time for our automated systems to learn enough about new pages like this for them to rank better for relevant terms. This delay can vary by country. This page is and was ranking in the first page in the US, has risen elsewhere & likely will continue automatically." They point out that the same thing happened with Joe Biden's campaign website. --Andreas JN466 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Myers, Fraser (October 12, 2020). "Why has Google censored the Great Barrington Declaration?". Spiked.

Organizing the Reception section

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-barrington-declaration-is-not-saying-lock-up-grandma/ has an interesting way of summarizing the reaction to this declaration into seven categories of opposition. That suggests that seven paragraphs or subsections might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be following the lobbyists' own methods for rationalizing away their critics (again). Almost any other sort of arrangement would be more neutral than one the proponents themselves use for deflecting it. GPinkerton (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would leave behind their spin, but I think it's not a bad summary. In plain language, the these for the sections would be:

1. Voluntary shielding doesn't work (because humans are bad at risk, and if we could all stay isolated without anyone telling us to do so, the tobacco industry would have collapsed long ago, and we'd all follow the guidelines about exercise).
2. Science by press release isn't science.
3. The practical details problem (because the details are impractical: How do you re-open all the schools when most of the teachers aren't low risk?)
4. Political pandering, or it's okay with these signatories if the hospitals are overwhelmed, as long as all those sick and dying people made a voluntary choice to take those risks. (Also, they're 'only trying to stimulate debate'.)
5. Disproportionate harm to vulnerable people, especially people who feel that they have no real choice about whether they're exposed to the people who are supposed to spread the infection to as many people as possible.
6. Long-term disability: Do the Quality-adjusted life years lost caused in survivors of COVID-19 exceed the QALYs lost to lockdown-imposed stress?
7. Opposes most restrictive rules (which are no longer in place in most areas) but not necessarily all rules (like the ones that most people are living in right now). (Also, it's US-centric.)

We could probably come up with some other categories, especially "Herd immunity won't work", but I think that thematic categories would be a good way to organize it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, it's self-serving. Find a reliable independent secondary source. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they would agree that the end result would be self-serving. But we've got a simpler categorization scheme below, and I think that would be better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would have fewer divisions if going down that route. More like:

1. The idea is not science per se. Science by press release isn't science.
2. The idea is manifestation of right-wing ideology (and even far-right, given it's more libertarian than the mainstream conservative governments and parties governing much of the developed world) Political pandering, or it's okay with these signatories if the hospitals are overwhelmed, as long as all those sick and dying people made a voluntary choice to take those risks. (Also, they're 'only trying to stimulate debate'.)
3. The idea won't work (i.e. Voluntary shielding doesn't work (because humans are bad at risk, and if we could all stay isolated without anyone telling us to do so, the tobacco industry would have collapsed long ago, and we'd all follow the guidelines about exercise). and Disproportionate harm to vulnerable people, especially people who feel that they have no real choice about whether they're exposed to the people who are supposed to spread the infection to as many people as possible. and The practical details problem (because the details are impractical: How do you re-open all the schools when most of the teachers aren't low risk?) are al really the same thing: high infection rate = higher infection rate in the vulnerable.
4. The idea is dangerous: Long-term disability: Do the Quality-adjusted life years lost caused in survivors of COVID-19 exceed the QALYs lost to lockdown-imposed stress?
5. Opposes most restrictive rules (which are no longer in place in most areas) but not necessarily all rules (like the ones that most people are living in right now). (Also, it's US-centric.)

Would you want to split up the various commentators' comments when they cover more than one aspect? GPinkerton (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair group. It might be possible to combine 2+5 and 3+4. What I think we should avoid is something like "Alice said 1, 3, and 4; Bob said 3 and 5; Carol said 1, 2, and 5." Alice and Bob and Carol are obviously notable people, but their identities are kind of trivia here. If Alice and Carol didn't say that science by press release isn't science, then someone else would have.

I'd like to see us reduce the "Alice said... Bob said... Carol said..." approach, and start focusing on what multiple sources say. Once multiple sources have said the same things (e.g., Alice and Bob both say that increasing in-person social interaction would reduce the mental distress in people with depression , and nobody claims the opposite), we should start saying that 'some sources say' instead of 'Alice and Bob say'. For controversial claims, it is appropriate to name the individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the most depressing thing is that the argument makes a kind of sense if you're prepared to accord human lives a pretty low monetary value, and where you have a for profit medical system where the costs of suffering to many are a source of profit to others. If you can also push the cost of treating long-term illness (aka "pre-existing conditions") onto the victims, it all looks very rosy for the guys who pay for this kind of thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There are costs and benefits to all approaches, and at some point, the deaths and disabilities that we attribute to COVID-19 have to be compared to the deaths and disabilities from suicide, child abuse, increased alcohol and tobacco use (I read that sales are up in wealthy countries but down in poor ones), etc. You don't have to accord human lives a low monetary value to say that you'd rather see more preventable deaths from COVID-19 and fewer preventable deaths due to late diagnosis of cancer than the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the calculus is, however, fundamentally different in the USA, where the same denialist activism has already led to far and away the highest per capita fatality rate in the world. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Not quite true. Peru, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Spain, & Mexico all did worse as of yesterday . GPinkerton (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Ah yes, Bolsonaro. A model of pragmatism and following the science... Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what matters IMO is that the calculation is exactly the same everywhere: you estimate the total deaths (or, if you prefer, total DALYs) for each strategy, and see which number is bigger. I happen to think, based on my limited knowledge, that the restrictive strategy will work better in wealthy countries, especially since today's news reports a case of proven re-infection a mere six weeks after the first one. If they think their approach is better, then they should be publishing their numbers, not their dreams. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't the reason why this approach is such a wet dream for more extreme elements of the right, the thought that the rich old folks can isolate in their mansions while the virus is left to let rip, handily exterminating the weak and sickly and so purifying the human breeding stock? Which is why Gregg Gonsalves has been criticizing it as borderline eugenics ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be obvious to everybody who is familiar with the exponential function that if deaths from other reasons are prioritized over deaths from the pandemic, total deaths will be higher than otherwise. Deaths from other reasons are just a fig leaf. Guy, you hit it on the head: The Declaration's goal is avoiding loss of money, not avoiding loss of lives, and that can be gleaned from the venue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Hob Gadling this is unhelpful. There is wide agreement that the concerns expressed in the first half of the declaration. are real and devastating especially to the less fortunate. See WP:TPNO, WP:SOAPBOX. fiveby(zero) 13:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussing what sources say is what Talk pages are for. And Misplaced Pages is meant to be reflecting secondary analysis of this event, not allowing editors to interpret it for themselves. If RS commentators are detecting an extreme right ideological angle as the informing context for this, that is of interest to Misplaced Pages - and it's not surprising they do since it would suit the agenda of this stunt's backers to see the collapse of an organized state leaving survivors to their - err - "pure" freedom. As Gabriel Scally observed:

we also need to note where it comes from, from the AIER ... and their mission in life is to promote "ideas of pure freedom and private governance", and that very phrase probably tells you all you need to know about where this comes from.

This type of observation gives the context explaining why the scientist backers have been called (in RS) politically naive, useful idiots, and so on. Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article should say that this is being promoted by this particular group because it's ideologically compatible with this group's beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Some proposed sources

I've been looking for better sources, and I think I've got a few here that are better than some of what's currently cited:

• Lenzer, Jeanne (2020-10-07). "Covid-19: Group of UK and US experts argues for "focused protection" instead of lockdowns". BMJ. 371. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3908. ISSN 1756-1833. PMID 33028622.
  • News article in one of the most reputable medical journals
• Turner-Cohen, Alex (2020-10-11). "WHO doctor's stunning lockdown backflip". The Toowoomba Chronicle. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  • Australian daily newspaper. Helps situate the story in global/non-US-centric terms
• Woolfolk, John (2020-10-12). "Coronavirus: Stanford doctors among leaders of global anti-lockdown movement". The Mercury News. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  • California daily newspaper. Includes specific comparisons to Sweden and Brazil, where strict lockdowns have not been imposed.

Please let me know what you think of these. I mostly think that these will replace and refine existing sources, instead of expanding the article even further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, these seem OK as long as we're not using them to assert that the claims in the "declaration" are in any way valid or peer-reviewed. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For Nabirro we should just cite the Spectator and leave it. There no need for the second-spun version. GPinkerton (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TBH, only the BMJ one sounds worth using. The others don't inspire me with feelings of journalistic excellence. Not sure why Nabirro is even relevant to this article, other than timing and having a vaguely similar angle. He mentions the lockdowns impacting the poor worst, which is no doubt true, but in the UK the virus is impacting the poor worst too, so it seems a bit of a buggered whichever way you turn situation. -- Colin° 07:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Colin, Nabirro is being used by the right to assert that the entire WHO has flipped on the issue. Which is, of course, bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Chronicle paragraph When asked about the petition, Dr Nabarro had only good things to say. “Really important point by Professor Gupta,” he said. completely misrepresents Nabarro. Nabarro was not responding to a question about the petition (by "petition" they mean the Declaration) at all, but to another very specific point made by Gupta, namely that national lockdowns have an effect on poorer countries' economies as well. You can see the interview here: So I'd agree that you should not use the Chronicle article, at least not in this article to source commentary by Nabarro on the Declaration. --Andreas JN466 09:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I opposed the Science Media Centre quotes as a source earlier because we shouldn't be cherry-picking quotes from a primary source, but many RS are linking to that document so maybe i was wrong? fiveby(zero) 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby I'd say cite the secondary source(s), quote only what they quote, and add the Science Media Centre page as a second, ancillary reference. --Andreas JN466 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Are various countries/governments taking the GBD pill?

That question could be the foundation for a new section. I've just read a Guardian article indication that the answer for the UK is "no": . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine any National govt. seeing a one page document from some odd US think tank and thinking "aha! let's change policy based on this!" (no, not even in the UK <g>), though it's likely any policy announcement of any kind in the coming weeks might attract some fake descriptions of it being "prompted" by Barrington (as we have already seen with the WHO; see above). I suspect it will only be in the long term that we have sources telling us whether this stunt had any influence ... if, that is, it doesn't just get forgotten. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources say that this proposal is not very different from what Sweden and Brazil have been doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

People say all sorts of things about Sweden, without really bothering to find out what Sweden did and why. Sweden did not pursue a policy of achieving herd immunity (whereas this declaration believes, without evidence from similar infectious diseases, that herd immunity is inevitable and should be hurried up). Sweden did not allow people "with minimal risk of death to live their lives normally". For example, workers were asked to work from home, and 50% did. Secondary schools and universities were asked to adopt distance learning, which they did, for a period. Sweden had a large drop in those using public transport and town centres were empty. Large gatherings were banned. People were told not to travel abroad, and avoid travel during Easter, and they did. None of these recommendations would have been made if the intention, per this declaration, was to hurry up herd immunity among those unlikely to die of covid. Further, unlike this declaration's proposals, the retired population of Sweden did not get all their groceries and essentials delivered to their homes, nor were the care homes staffed only by those who had "acquired immunity" through previous infection. -- Colin° 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The declaration is unnecessary for Brazil. It's targeted at countries that aren't already doing it that way. I confess to being slightly surprised that even Hancock has been so quick to reject it. I'm less surprised that there are nutty Tories salivating over it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WHO

I was happy to read the addition of the statement by Dr Tedros. But then I checked the source, and I'm sad to see that it doesn't mention the declaration, so I fear the inclusion of the source is WP:SYNTH, even though it's quite clear why he's saying this now.

On a related point, there was a long interview with Nabarro on BBC Radio 4's World at One today, and though he too did not make mention of the declaration, it's quite clear that any claim he supported it or its principles is completely backwards. He did also say that the science and the mainstream scientists supported more restrictive (but sensible) lockdown rules than politicians in countries such as Britain were doing. GPinkerton (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Judging by your edit since you wrote the above, I assume you are okay with it now. There is a clear reference to the Great Barrington Declaration in the cited secondary source, as there is in many others that have reported Tedros' statement, e.g. , , , , etc. --Andreas JN466 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tedros Ghebreyesus: "Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it," Is that right? If not, why should we have anything sourced to WHO or its head? Arcturus (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course that's right. Traditionally, herd immunity is reached when enough of your livestock have been vaccinated, thereby acquiring immunity and protection, in this case from a virus. GPinkerton (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But he didn't mention vaccines. Presumably he should have said "Herd immunity is achieved by vaccinating people …". Also, he doesn't appear to understand the difference between infection and contagion. It's a bit worrying when these people either don't know what they're talking about, or are bad communicators. I'd be wary about using WHO pronouncements as reputable sources. Arcturus (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed COVID-19 articles
• Unknown-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• B-Class Massachusetts articles
• Unknown-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class virus articles
• Unknown-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English