Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 [1] were in response to the Gupta/Heneghan letter [2], 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 ^talk 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. Wikipedia 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[3]. 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 Wikipedia 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[4] 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)

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 ^talk 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 [5]. 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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)

Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia articles should be written in a way people understand. If people can be expected to draw wrong conclusions from a Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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[ing] 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 ^talk 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 [6]. 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[7] 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[8] 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.[9] 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 [to herd immunity], 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 [the United States] 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 [to Focused Protection], 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 [the United States] 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 "[the United States]" is not part of the source quoted, but "the alternative [to herd immunity]" 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. [10] 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 Wikipedia in that direction. Fine, you and your ilk are being very rapidly discredited. Unfortunately, you are discrediting Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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°^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia'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".[11] 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)

{{s|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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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 Wikipedia's open process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminerthos (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eminerthos, personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [Cornwall Declaration] or the [Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change], but there are many more. [Fred Singer] used to do these often. There are also ones against Darwinian evolution, such as [Scientific Dissent from Darwinism]. 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)

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 [which is not a controversial claim], 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 [12]. 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)

[Edit conflict] 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.[13][14] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - 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:[15]

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)

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. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] 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? [21] 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)

POTD! Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just sayin! I've never been one to cast aspersions, but it does make you wonder, when you read the whole article. Arcturus (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. GPinkerton (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am doing. The point I'm labouring to get across is actually quite straightforward - and obvious. Based on what the head of the WHO said in that article (and other articles that similarly reported it) it's clear we should not use anything from the WHO to reference, i.e. support, hard science. The man in question is obviously knowledgeable, and perhaps an expert, in his field, but he seems to be a poor communicator. A layman reading that article would think he was saying that 'lockdowns' are the way to confer herd immunity. He's a politician, not a practising scientist. Arcturus (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

we should not use anything from the WHO to reference, i.e. support, hard science ← this editor needs to be banned. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Banned for having a point-of-view you don't like? Extraordinary! Arcturus (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

For urging exclusion of a source, which according to the WP:PAGs is one of the most valuable we have for WP:Biomedical information (see WP:MEDORG). Such urging is not in line with the purpose of this Project. You have been alerted to the sanctions in effect. 19:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not using it to support science. This whole article is a about an exchange of opinions. No science is involved or cited, except the one paper about Sweden explicitly referred to by someone or other quoted somewhere. WHO is against the idea put forth by the AIER, that's all that needs to be said. As was said at the beginning of the lockdowns, it's about infection suppression. Anyone that thinks herd immunity is something only acquired by exposure 1.) wasn't listening in school when vaccination was explained, and 2.) has a very faulty understanding of the usual course of disease pandemics. Smallpox ended in the 20th century, but the pandemic had lasted since at least the reign of Ramses V. Herd immunity was achieved with vaccination, that's the whole point of vaccines, variolation, and inoculation. The second plague pandemic lasted half a millennium and yet there is no immunity to plague in humans. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all good stuff. However, when someone puts out guff like Tedros did in that interview it's clear he's not the best of communicators and we should be wary about what he says, and how he says it. I'll row back a bit in that I implied above this should apply to the WHO as a whole, but obviously as an organisation they put out useful material. In summary - you want to use Tedros as a source, then check it out carefully. Personally, I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole. Arcturus (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And this personal smear from an editor who professes to be ultra-concerned about WP:BLP. WP:NOTHERE? Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well at least I'm not referring to him as a "rogue scientist" [22], or rogue anything for that matter. And please stop quoting policies and procedures. It's getting very tedious, but please feel free to have the last word, if you must. Arcturus (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, the quote from Tedros includes a very clear reference to vaccination, and always has. ("Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination ...") Did you miss it when reading the paragraph? --Andreas JN466 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, Yes, I noticed it, but it seems to be the author of the piece explaining it, not Tedros Ghebreyesus. Arcturus (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus No, you're mistaken; Tedros said it, and it's also in the transcript (which is in the article as an ancillary ref). Best, --Andreas JN466 21:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's reported as this; "The head of the World Health Organization has ruled out a herd immunity response to the pandemic. Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community becomes immune to a disease through vaccinations or through the mass spread of a disease." [23]. It then goes on to quote Tedros, as mentioned above. I see what you mean in the transcript, but the thrust of the statement was a rebuttal of the anti-lockdown movement, so perhaps he could have explained it better when using words like "protecting people from the virus". Thanks for pointing out the full transcript. Arcturus (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. That BBC article is poorly put together and makes him sound nonsensical in context. Best, --Andreas JN466 21:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I think he sounds nonsensical in context because they are frantically tap-dancing around the fallout from a naive and ill-considered statement. But that's just my opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

--Andreas JN466 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This again is why science is not done by press release. GPinkerton (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Typo correction

May I suggest that in the penultimate para of the 'Signatories' section we should change 'In response Jay Bhattacharya regretted...' to 'In response, Jay Bhattacharya regretted...' (i.e., insert a comma)? Kitb (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and I split the sentence as well. Arcturus (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, reads much better now! Kitb (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest dumping the 'signatories' section

Let's dump the Signatories section about the online petition. Funny names in an online petition are not encyclopedia-worthy information about the GBD. And of course a public online petition that attracted three quarters of a million signatures attracts a bunch of people who aren't experts in the subject. This section makes Wikipedia look dumb. -- M.boli (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it makes the idea of an online petition as a means of informing health care decisions for millions of people dumb. For as many professionals and experts that were included, many others had no equivalent relevant experience, insight, or know-how, making it an ideological statement to associate thenselves with, rather than a peer reviewed paper or similar.

In short; they want the benefit of looking legitimate as much as possible but to avoid an actual legitimising process, while also having their signatories padded out as much as possible. Well it worked. And they got lots of silly ones. Koncorde (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In other words, it is important to include a paragraph showing that people wrote silly names to an online petition because it makes the GBD look silly. As I said, not encyclopedia-worthy. The online petition is not a notable part of the story, absent the silly names nobody would have bothered to mention it. -- M.boli (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's important to give the context of the signatories. That a significant portion of the RS coverage highlighted grave concerns with their auditing / control of the signatory element is WP:DUE. We don't exclude coverage because it is flattering.

And, to be clear, the vast majority of coverage is very much concerned with its trial by public opinion methodology, of which the signatories are a large portion. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I come a little bit from a different angle: How can we know today(!) if the current signature-count provided is legitimate, verified, which is the only data that should be acceptable if we would ever discuss it, use it, etc.? FAQ does not say a word if the currently (total, adding the three groups) of 819.766 is unique signees. No, I did not ask the authors, but I have a feeling there might be a tool for filtering such lists. What is the meaning, if it is not verified, a self-confirmation? KR --17387349L8764 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That is just one of the many problems with the list, which has not been mentioned yet because it would only be interesting if such lists had any meaning. Which they don't because of all the other problems, the most damaging is that this is not how science is done. I am not saying that you should not have mentioned it, just that this is the usual situation with pseudoscience proponents: most of the time, what they do contains so many rookie mistakes, each of which alone would have doomed their argument, that it is to be expected that people find new ones all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

M.boli, I agree. It's a political stunt, not a scientific document, and the list of signatories lends it spurious credibility, as the sources make clear. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest only removing the first paragraph (which lacks a secondary source.) The second paragraph is well-cited, making it clear that the large number of fake names is something that has attracted significant coverage. Especially given how skeptical secondary sources are, it seems completely inappropriate to use the authors as a primary source to make a claim that those secondary sources cast doubt on; we should cover it via the secondary sources, with the context of those doubts and all. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the message so saying that is is a political stunt rather than a scientific document is absolutely baffling to me and looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any case, this information is WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section. JBchrch (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is true that, as you say, "serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the message" - and if this fact is noteworthy and relevant - then it should be easy to find secondary sources stating that. But we cannot say or imply it with only a primary cite to AIER, who is not a reliable source and who fails WP:ABOUTSELF when making plainly self-serving statements that are also about third parties (ie. the people they claim signed it.) Note that, as the secondary sources indicate, AIER did no fact-checking on its list; anyone could claim to be whoever they pleased when signing it - we absolutely need high-quality secondary sources for any individual person we want to claim signed it per WP:BLP, since stating that they signed it is a BLP-sensitive statement. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please dump the signatories section. Every petition of over a half-million names will have fake names. No evidence has been provided in this section to document that this is an actual problem. Let us consider, for example, the outdated source (Oct. 9, 2020) in The Independent, which listed 15,000 scientists and medical practitioners, amongst whom more than 123 people were itemized whom The Independent assumed were questionable or more than 0.82% of the total signatures. Compare this to the recall petition validity count for Governor Newsome "According to the final signature verification report from the Secretary of State, recall organizers turned in 2,161,349 signatures and county election officials found 1,719,943 were valid, meaning they came from registered voters and matched the voter's signature on file." in the Capradio website or 20.4% invalid. That gives a relative indication of the size of misrepresentation that might contribute to the invalidation of a petition. But in order to invalidate a petition, there would have to be a fixed number of signatories that is considered valid, and in the case of the GBD there is no such number, and there is also no legal standing for the GBD to debate. Now allsides.com rates The Independent as "Left Leaning" , and I would consider that this is a manufactured issue of no significance. That is, left leaning readers might consider this to be a "gotcha," but neutral readers would be more likely to consider it Clickbait. Now on this site, it depends on what one considers evidence. In this case, heuristic reports for an issue that has no legal standing of an effect that is not claimed to exceed 1% pales in comparison to a more newsworthy report of legal petition with a 20.4% invalidation rate, which rate still only "might" mean anything. Why discuss Clickbait at all? Dump it, it contributes nothing to the discussion of the issues that are worth discussing within the GBD. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The Great Declaration was invalid from the start because it is about a scientific subject, and science is not done by declarations or collections of signatures. The fake names are just the cream on top of that fact. Comparing this with political petitions where signatories were confirmed by some local Secretary of State does not make any sense at all. It's like you demand people put gasoline in muffins because you put it in your car, then, when that reasoning does not meet with success, showing notarized witness accounts confirming that you have indeed put gasoline in your car.

Look, you are talking to people who know how science is done, some of whom actually do it for a living. We are not as easy to bamboozle as the average voter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You again, and this time posing as a scientist. That is just another red herring. Who is claiming that the GBD is science? What it was was advice. All you and this work offer are off the cuff opinion with no science content whatsoever, no statistics, just raw opinion offered in a ruinous "abundance of caution." Consider the costs. Here is a link to a review of 80 papers http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf That was done a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University and is cited in lots of "secondary sources." The author, Douglas W. Allen is cited 4563 times according to Google, which suggests he is a very good academic. In that cost analysis review paper, which I would assume an expert economist is qualified to make, the impact of lockdowns in Canada was to save 22,300 years of life, whereas the cost was 6,300,000 years of life, a 282 times higher cost than benefit. According to The Epoch Times, "Lockdowns May be Canada's Biggest Policy Failure in History, Report Says." https://www.theepochtimes.com/lockdowns-could-be-canadas-biggest-policy-failure-in-history-report-says_3796311.html Now before you go on about what is and is not science, reviews are not basic research, so in that sense they are opinion, but in this case the opinion seems to have a lot of references. Also see The Economist https://fee.org/articles/economist-lockdowns-greatest-peacetime-policy-failure-in-canada-s-history/ and I don't care how many others. What I would like to see are any numbers that support the bizarre claims I see in this article, but as you have none, I guess that would be too much to hope for. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to believe this, but I am actually a scientist. Anyway, now that you understand that people here are not ignorant enough to believe that the GBD is scientifically credible, you pretend it was never intended to be. That will not fly either; its falsity is obvious from earlier contributions in this discussion alone. You then change the subject, finally showing the typical economist nothing-is-important-except-profits-and-losses attitude that is the real motivation behind the GBD. But this section is about whether fake signatories should be mentioned, so this is widely off-topic. I think the useful part of this discussion is over. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I clearly explained that there is a difference between a petition in which the number of signatories has legal meaning and one wherein it doesn't. Then, you echo back that "Hey, these thing are different." No kidding, you are just looking at what I said out of context, not because that makes sense, but because if I said black you would say white just to be contrary. Moreover the usage rate of those false names is derisory, far less than the rate of pseudonym usage on this site. Does using a pseudonym invalidate an opinion? Not always, I would think. Now, where are the numbers that make the case for anything you say about GBD, and I have a problem with people claiming "science" without numerical evidence. As for the byzantine topic rules on this site, I can start a new topic if it pleases you. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not pretend to be a scientific authority. The GBD does. The existence of fake names further undermines its already negligible credibility. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a person and there is a lot of good science on Wikipedia, but in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same. Most real names are not like yours "GUY" in capitals. That does not invalidate your opinion, but your words do that for you. If you claim negligible credibility, then you should present numbers that support that contention. That claim is off-topic here, and is nonetheless answered above. Your unscientific opinion is demonstrably damaging to the body politic. Put up numbers to support your claim to counter mine or desist. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it will be helpful to explain what the different categories of scientific evidence are in practical terms. Scientific evidence, in terms of publication of same, is fundamentally peer-reviewed basic research in which data modelling is presented and interpreted. That does not seem to be a recognized category here, but is actual science. That is what I am asking you for to support your opinion. Less basic but still peer reviewed would be review articles in which meta-analysis is presented, where meta-analysis is numeric using the rules for meta-analysis, that is also a category that appears to be unrecognized on Wikipedia, but I would happily accept that as a scientific response. Then there are publications, also peer-reviewed, that are opinions rendered by research scientists, I would accept that here as well as evidence, but not without a grain of salt. Now the GBD is an opinion piece by recognized scientists of high caliper, was not initially peer-reviewed, but more of a whistle-blower type of publication that numerous people, some of whom are indeed highly qualified (like me) agree with because of prior knowledge of epidemiology, economics or whatever. That would be called a 'post hoc' reviewed opinion, declaration or a guideline. I am on one medical society's guideline oversight review committees and a delegate to a multidisciplinary committee, so I review such things a lot, and yes post-hoc reviewed opinion is a real category for practice guidelines. What I don't have from you is any evidence of anything other than your conclusions, which in peer-reviewed circles would be cause for dismissal as "conclusions not based on information presented," an anathema in scientific circles. So put up or shut up, where is your evidence? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Great Barrington Declaration" is not science. It's pro-corporate activism using libertarians to argue for something that will advantage the few to the detriment of the many - exactly as we'd expect, given that it's run by a right-wing grift tank. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, GUY, the GBD is the opinion of known scientist specialists. Opinion from scientists is not science and you are off-topic and shadowboxing. You imply that they claim that opinion is science and then say that opinion is not science. Where is your evidence that they claim that the opinion of scientists is science? Then you claim that their opinion is motivated by a far-fetched conspiracy theory. How do you know? Are you an especially gifted mind-reader? I have a much more simple theory that explains a lot more. They are IMHO motivated by concern for the general welfare. That is what motivates me, and as my thinking aligns with theirs as to the particulars of what they are saying, I signed the petition. Perhaps you would wish to infer the same for me, that I am the member of some think-tank funded by some right wing group? Trust me, I am a totally independent thinker. Now, if you were to put me under the microscope you could manufacture some linkage between some bank I own stock in, and a right-wing corporate board member of one of a number of banks whom I have never met, and it would be sheer fantasy. I don't know what you are smoking, but give me some of it, please. You can settle the issue by sending them an email and asking what motivated them. I bet dollars to donuts that they will give you an honest answer, and I say this because none of their opinions is discordant with what I know of epidemiology. If your knowledge of epidemiology is profound enough, we could discuss that, but you don't seem interested, so I don't hold out much hope for that. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this still about improving the article? If not, please go somewhere else, IP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is very much about improving the article. My suggestion is to dump the Signatories section as it detracts from the article content in the sense that it is read by anyone who knows what is petition is as both insignificant in the specific case here, and at a lower rate by comparison to other petitions. While suggesting this, equivocating side issues have been brought up that belong elsewhere in this talk section, and also need addressing from a neutral POV. You will perhaps forgive me if I do not agree that this article is at present fit for consumption, it needs work, and much of the damage has already been done by posting a list of conspiracy theories, and partisan volatile opinion; subject to change without notice. My motive here is mitigating harm, and whether or not you agree personally with me should not be an issue in and of itself. I am getting a bit tired of the "you, you, you" personal characterizations, and suggest that you address the veracity of content of the article. This reviewer says "Needs work." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring all the hot air in that contribution, this condenses to "the signatories section should go because the fake names are insignificant compared to what happens with petitions". But the GBD starts with the words "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have...". That means: by signing it, you are claiming you are either an "infectious disease epidemiologist" or a "public health scientist". So, the fake names demonstrate that the organizers did a very bad job in screening the people who signed it, and the reasoning that this should not be mentioned because of comparisons with petitions open for everyone does not hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a thing that has been commented on by reliable sources. If this isn't significant then the entire thing is not, and the article should be deleted. I'd be fine with that, by the way. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a good example of manufacturing news out of nothing. I would be fine with deleting the entire article as well, as it stands it does not discuss the issues. The whole article is mistaken opinion, and your reliable sources make the GBD signatories look inspired by contrast. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The GBD stands on its own merit. If there were no people signaling their agreement, the manufactured news would have been not an argument on merit, but that no one has such an opinion. Having a petition format with 10's of thousands of signatures obviated that claim. In its place, so-called "reputable sources" made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taints all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV, and also besides the point; there is no argument presented on the GBD merits, and when numerical support for the GBD is presented, our "reputable sources" ignore it. The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives. "Reputable sources," whose claims do not pass finger counting checks are so irrelevant to the discussion that it detracts from the content severely. It is just noise designed to get us from one lie to the next and obviously when caught out in a bald faced lie, we implausibly deny lying; "It can't be a lie; the sources are 'reputable'." In a pig's eye they are. If I were to go through the list of the media bias of those sources, you would ignore that too. I went through the exercise of calculating the less than 1% suspect signatures, and that was not countered, numerically. My entreaties for numerical evidence were ignored, and the retained opinions signal recalcitrance but not common sense. I see no meritorious counter arguments. You want to believe your "reputable sources" when discredited, fine, but I would really prefer to discuss things that make sense. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, Professor 207.47.175.199: my suggestion is that you simply tell us your real identity here, and then link to your own peer-reviewed academic sources where you articulate these views in a way that carries weight around here. Game over for those two-faced liberal lamestream manipulators! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content rules do not allow for self-citation even though that makes no content sense. It's like a publisher dictating that in Chapter 2 of a book one cannot say, "In Chapter 1, we proved a conjecture. The current chapter applies those results." How dare I cite my own first chapter? As for who I am, read the aspersions cast here. As for views that carry weight, it is not the strength of an argument that counts here, i.e., the logic of things, but rather voting up or down on propositions as if that made sense; it doesn't. If we were to put the statement that "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West." versus "The Earth rotates from West to East under the sun." up to a vote, the science would lose. So, I suggest that you identify your support for deleting the Signatories section more explicitly. That would help, in context, such as it is. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You have gone far into WP:OR territory here. Reliable sources are unreliable, unreliable sources are reliable, many people accepting something makes it more credible when you agree with it ("10's of thousands of signatures"), but does not when you don't ("the science would lose") - we cannot use all that. If you do not accept the premise of Wikipedia that articles are based on reliable sources and not on your armchair cogitations, there is no point in arguing with you.

Nomoskedasticity's suggestion tried to point you in that direction: give us a high-quality source for all that - written by you or someone else, it matters not - or shut up. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not apply censorship here. Comment reduced to essentials. I have no idea what you mean when you say high quality source. Here is a statement with signatures about the GBD. History: the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their Covid 19 policy. https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544, which states in part that their dictates are not to be spoken against. That is censorship, if you delete this, again, it will also be censorship. Now, their power is to cancel the medical license of any Ontario physician who does not follow their public policy the likes of which is wholly unscientific according to The Declaration of Canadian Physicians https://canadianphysicians.org/. In turn, that declaration supports the opinion of the GBD. The issue here is whether the signatories are real on not, so the link to other real signatories who support the GBD is relevant. There are lots of content experts who agree with the GBD. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean when you say high quality source. Yes, that is obvious, since you are offering a link to Twitter. I think we are finished here, until you have read and understood WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The twitter post was made by CPSO itself, the source is the CPSO website: https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformation. It is one thing to state a bunch of weird rules, and another to follow them. You have no way of showing that the opinion that the signatories of GBD are fake is a majority opinion, and it does not agree with an examination of the source, saying instead that homeopaths may have signed it and other drivel. Even if you consider the opinion that the majority of signatures are correct to be a significant minority opinion, you have not honored that either. (You brought this up, it is off topic:) Rules alone are no guarantee that they are followed, and in particular http://archive.is/dDr7X did a survey of the Wikipedia Articles on 21st Century American Politicians based on Allsides media classification, and provided evidence that only one of 10 sources were right biased. On that basis, Allsides removed its "center" rating of Wikipedia, and now does not rate Wikipedia at all whilst it develops criteria to actually rate mixed bags like Wikipedia, see https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wikipedia. Overall the signatories section here is manufactured news with no significant coverage of reality. Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real.

Because the CPSO dictate is so biased, and there is significant resistance to such an authoritarian stance the text retrieved today is next given as a direct quote in toto:

"CPSO Statement:"

"The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science." That statement is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent acknowledged. Again we see the empty appeal to science and evidence. One cannot disprove a hypothesis without first entertaining it, and when alternative viewpoints are not not even allowed to be mentioned, there is no science. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Epidemiology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is high time for the editors to read enough about epidemiology to acquire the base information necessary to write an article of any type on that subject. I am including a link to an article that appeared on the CDC website in 2013. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/2/12-0312_article Please read it, and then consider that one cannot use quarantine to stop a highly contagious respiratory virus. Note, the article does not report primary research, therefore it is at best the equivalent of a review, in this case, of the history of quarantine. The effect of quarantine on minority populations and the poor is devastating. To formulate an opinion or even to adjudicate one from any source requires that one can distinguish nonsense from fact. Personally, I consider the CDC as scatterbrained. However, since the current article on the GBD has cited a number of state actors from NIH and or CDC, it should be considered evidentiary here. Please also do not cherry pick the article, not every disease is the same. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That link is from seven years before the GBD, and therefore cannot be used in the article. If you do not want to use it in the article, WP:NOTFORUM applies.

Also, the article you linked says During the 2003 pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome, the use of quarantine, border controls, contact tracing, and surveillance proved effective in containing the global threat in just over 3 months. So, it seems to say the opposite of what you claim it says.

The effect of quarantine on minority populations and the poor is devastating The effect of pandemics on those can be even more devastating. That is the problem with the economist viewpoint on non-economic subjects with economic consequences: economists and those who follow them are blind to anything outside of their area, and they only look at the costs of measures while ignoring the costs of not taking the measures - because that would involve knowledge outside their expertise. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, I chose a recent article that predates SARS-CoV-2 precisely because at that time there was a more objective historical view of what quarantine has meant for the last several thousand years that was not clouded by spurious revisionism. That you say I can not talk about the past only means that you refuse to learn from it, but, somehow, you can cite the past in order to present empty arguments. And, you talk about SARS-CoV-1 as if it were as transmissible as SARS-CoV-2. They are not comparable, the former was contained by very limited quarantine, and the latter not containable even with Draconian measures. I warned the reader not to cherry pick the text, which you did immediately without understanding what you were reading. Your opinion of the effects of quarantine is vapid. The article is replete with warning on that subject, try to read with understanding rather than just shooting your mouth off. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you imagine you're going to persuade other editors here with this approach? I suspect most will simply get tired of responding to posts with that sort of tone. Or we can just close this thread on grounds of WP:NOTFORUM. (I take it you're not an actual epidemiologist, you only fantasize about cosplaying one on Fox News?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The the current article reads like gibberish. I was trying to give a background as an aid to editing. I don't know how or where else to start. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The article has no relevance as far as Wikipedia is concerned because it does not mention the topic or anything closely related to it. Please see WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The topic is improving the post concerning the GBD, which outlines a classical approach to epidemiology. I am trying to improve the article. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You should consider reading up on the WP:OR policy that was just linked, then. We can only use citations that are directly on-point - this is not a place to discuss COVID or Epidemiology in general. - MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

In a narrow sense, perhaps. But attacking GBD epidemiologists without evidence concerning epidemiology is not about the GBD either, and it is far worse. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

you say I can not talk about the past I don't say that, and you know I don't. Instead, I am saying that your talking about the pre-GBD past is off-topic here, for the reasons given.

It is not necessary to keep demonstrating that adherence to the GBD requires shifty tactics, since we already have ample evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support close. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

https://gript.ie/great-barrington-declaration-authors-set-out-key-questions-for-covid-inquiry/ "The original Wikipedia attack on the Declaration remains basically unchanged since two weeks following its publication, other than a grudging recent addendum which refers to the finding by John P. Ioannaidis, published on the British Medical Journal open site, that while support for the GBD and the John Snow Memorandum [JSM] that was pitched by the media as a conclusive refutation of the Declaration, included “many stellar scientists … JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.” A large part of that social media presence was, unsurprisingly it seems, deliberately organised to create that impression." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So...this article badly needs updating. This article, IMHO, is detrimental to both the stated goals and implied intent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's reputation is tanking. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly are you bothering with Wikipedia if its reputation is tanking? It is not going to change its basic principles WP:5P very much any time soon. NadVolum (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ioannidis' vacuous ad-hominem-combined-with-ad-verecundiam paper has been considered and rejected before because it is, with good reason, not taken seriously by the scientific community. See archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify your statement. This article includes a lot of ad verecundiam, in fact, if that is ignored, there isn't much left. Ad-hominum, you mean like "Republican politicians are loud-mouth..." and "...you only fantasize about cosplaying one (Sic, epidemiologist) on Fox News"? Who? Ioannidis or Ioannaids? What consensus? I am seeing more contentious than consensus. Can we get to the task of improving this article, please? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Quoting reliable sources instead of unreliable ones is not argumentum ad verecundiam.

I am sure someone has already told you this, but we follow reliable sources. And part of reliability is the reception. Ioannidis' piece is generally viewed as ridiculous. There is no positive reception from scientists. That is why we will not use it. You and Ioannidis are free to believe that people like "Dr. Person Fakename" are "stellar scientists" by some randomly chosen metric, and Wikipedia is free to reject that idea.

What I say on this page about the Lies-and-Fraud Party is not quotable by Wikipedia articles either, and I do not know why you keep harping about it.

Regarding article improvement: You suggested a source, and you were told that the source has already been considered and rejected. You had no argument against that but went on several irrelevant tangents. That is not how articles are improved. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing the source said is that the only change to this article over time is minor re what you seem to be criticizing. You cannot have it both ways, in effect, there has been a change of no change in this article, and lots of data to the contrary left out. I give one source above in the Telegram, but I shouldn't be the only person looking for new information, you should be doing that as well. This article badly needs updating. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph, and I've said why it is wrong for this purpose. As to its 'experts', who are they and what are they experts in? NadVolum (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

this article badly needs updating You want to turn it into a pro-fringe article, and you call the "updating". There actually seems to be no need for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob--This article cites no numerical analysis--Opinion only is presented--That is unlike most Wikipedia articles--None of the mathematical models of contagion are presented, discussed, referenced, analysed, or seemingly understood by the editors. I haven't used the word fringe anywhere, but I have seen the word fringe used by the establishment in an attempt to marginalise anyone with whom it disagrees as a method of discounting opposition to war, and other nefarious purposes. Are you quite sure that fringe is a not word used by the fringe to discount truth? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't used the word fringe anywhere Pro-fringe people obviously never call their own opinions fringe. Your reasoning is so bad that it's not worth responding, so I'll just stop. Go get yourself an education somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems John Ioannidis wrote quite a bit about COVID-19. You can read about it over at the John Ioannidis article. Which is where that material belongs, as his contributions to understanding COVID were largely wrong. His whine about the unfairness of social media is in this article, last paragraph of the John Snow Memorandum section. -- M.boli (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The article cited is by Dr Matt Treacy, not John Ioannidis, the reference to John Snow was complementary in that it acknowledged that the article here actually said anything new since it was originally posted. If that is no longer the case, and there is nothing new here, then say so. I did not bring up anything concerning the content of the John Snow Memorandum, so why are you shadowboxing with it? It is not at issue, and it was never on my radar. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It was you who quoted Treacy writing about Ioannidis and his complaint regarding the John Snow Memorandum. Somehow was related to improving this article. Nevermind. Over and out, not worth engaging with. -- M.boli (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Look, that comment was mentioned in passing, and looking at it with a magnifying glass to take it out of context is inaccurate. The sources you cite here are so heavily filtered it is rediculous. The news you do not get is actually where a lot of mainstream activity is occurring. For example, there is as far as I can tell, a near total blackout on political activity that does not agree with the state sponsored narrative herein praised so lavishly. For example, I cannot find any news coverage whatsoever of the Canadian National Citizen's Inquiry , and the leftist Canadian media is failing to the extent that the leftist Canadian gov't is subsidizing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Don't you see the biased language in this Wikipedia article, like fringe? I haven't seen such a rabid pro governmental bias since the Vietnam War. How can you be comfortable with this? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

MAybe it went nowhere? As to why we feel comfortable, well the science backs us. And this needs closing now, you do not have consensus and are just bludging the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see anything numerical or even vaguely scientific in this post. As for the "science" that backs you up, it is lacking in the extreme. Science is not a collection of opinions from expert scientists, but rather is evidence that demonstrates that theories are incorrect. That last statement may seem challenging for non scientist. Put it this way, science cannot, for example, prove the law of gravity but it can demonstrate its effects numerically. In this post, the editors make assumptions and then prove they did so. For example, the editors assume that the GBD is bad, and then find opinions without data or data analysis that agree with that assumption. There is a lot of actual evidence to the contrary. Do you want to see it? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for Citizens' assembly, however I'm not at all certain that business in Canada is one rather than something masquerading as being one. NadVolum (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.