Connect with us

COVID-19

“Focused Protection” instead of COVID Restrictions. Three prominent epidemiologists calling for a new global response to COVID-19

Published

7 minute read

When it comes to COVID-19, one way or another countries around the world are eventually going to achieve herd immunity.  The way most countries are approaching the situation currently will stretch out the amount of time it’s going to take.  There are good reasons for that.  But now that the virus has been with us for close to a year we’ve learned not everyone is at the same risk of a serious outcome.  Some leading epidemiologists think it’s time to take another look at the global response to COVID.  As businesses close, millions look for work, seniors long for a hug from a loved one, and young people dream of getting back to their favourite sport, a new approach is being recommended.

The first few days of October, a group of epidemiologists headed by Harvard University’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Oxford University’s Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya met to discuss the way governments around the world are reacting to the COVID-19 crisis.  As a result of their discussions they posted The Great Barrington Declaration, a call for “Focused Protection”.  The declaration outlines a new strategy they hope governments around the world will soon adopt.  Coming out of their meeting the three co-signers of the declaration were interviewed by Freddie Sayers of UnHerd.  Here’s the fascinating discussion of why these leading thinkers are calling for a different global response to the pandemic.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

“This is the saner approach, the more scientific approach,” the authors tell Freddie Sayers

The Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 4th October 2020

To sign the declaration, follow this link
www.GBdeclaration.org

As of Wednesday, October 7 (only 3 days into this campaign) this declaration has been signed by over 3,500 Medical & Public Health Scientists, over 5,600 Medical Practitioners, and by over 84,000 members of the general public. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Freedom Convoy

Trudeau’s use of Emergencies Act has cost taxpayers $73 million thus far

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Expenses for the Emergencies Act, the use of which a federal court ruled ‘not justified,’ included $17.5 million for a judicial inquiry, $400,000 for charter flights and $1.3 million for hotel rooms for out-of-town RCMP officers.

The Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act against the 2022 Freedom Convoy has cost Canadian taxpayers over $73 million thus far. 

According to newly released records obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s enactment of the Emergencies Act, the use of which has since been ruled “not justified” by a federal court, to drive out Freedom Convoy protestors from Ottawa in 2022, cost the Department of Public Safety $73,550,568.  

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the $73 million figure was part of records released by the department at the request of Conservative MP Ziad Aboultaif, and despite its high number, is not the final account.

“With regard to enactment of the Emergencies Act in 2022, what was the cost burden for the government?” Conservative MP Ziad Aboultaif asked.  

“Cost associated with fiscal year 2023-2024 are still to be determined,” the department responded.  

According to the Department of Public Safety, most of the public safety expenses were attributed to local authorities in Ottawa and Windsor, Ontario.  

“It should be noted additional funding allocated by the government to Ottawa and its partners as well as Windsor were not specifically as a result of the Emergencies Act invocation but meant to compensate both municipalities for the extraordinary expenses incurred during and after the protracted blockades,” the report said. 

Other expenses included $17.5 million for a judicial inquiry, $400,000 for charter flights, and $1.3 million for hotel rooms for out-of-town RCMP officers.  

The costs were incurred after Trudeau enacted the Act on February 14, 2022 to shut down the Freedom Convoy protest which took place in Ottawa.  

At the time, the use of the Act was justified by claims that the protest was “violent,” a claim that has still gone unsubstantiated.

In fact, videos of the protest against COVID regulations and vaccine mandates show Canadians from across the country gathering outside Parliament engaged in dancing, street hockey, and other family-friendly activities.

Indeed, the only acts of violence caught on video were carried out against the protesters after the Trudeau government directed police to end the protest. One such video showed an elderly women being trampled by a police horse.   

Recently, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act.

However, the Trudeau government has doubled down on its heavy-handed response to citizen protesters, filing an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal – a court where 10 of the 15 sitting judges were appointed by Trudeau.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Pro-freedom Canadian nurse gets two years probation for protesting COVID restrictions

Published on

Ontario nurse Kristen Nagle

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Ontario nurse Kristen Nagle, a well-known figure in Canada’s pro-freedom movement during COVID, said her sentence of two-years probation is effectively a way for the government to silence her for the foreseeable future.

A Canadian nurse found guilty of violating Ontario’s COVID rules for participating in an anti-lockdown rally and speaking out against COVID mandates says despite scoring a recent “half-win” in court, her two-year probation sentence is designed to stop her from “speaking out or going against public health measures.”   

“The Crown wanted an egregious amount of $50,000. They saw my GiveSendGo, they saw the support, they saw that I was not deterred by the $20,000 sentencing and so they wanted to sentence me for $50,000- and two-years’ probation,” said Canadian nurse Kristen Nagle in a Facebook video posted on March 21.   

“So, kind of a half-win, the JP (justice of peace) agreed to the two years’ probation, I don’t really know what that looks like, what that means yet, but I’m under two years’ probation, I don’t know, and $7,500. And $7,500, is really not that bad compared to $50,000.” 

Nagle was heavily involved with the activist group Canadian Frontline Nurses and became a well-known face from those in the medical community in Canada who protested both the mRNA COVID jabs and lockdown dictates imposed by all levels of government.  

She worked at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) in Ontario before being terminated in 2021 for attending anti-lockdown rallies in 2020. She resigned from the College of Nurses of Ontario in January 2023. 

Nagle was found guilty by a court in February for violating Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s Reopening Ontario Act (RAO), after she attended and spoke at an anti-lockdown rally on January 22, 2022, in London, Ontario.  

At the end of March, a court ruled against the Crown’s requested $50,000 fine, and instead fined Nagle $7,500, plus a victim surcharge, which brought the total to $9,375, along with two years’ probation.  

The event that led to Nagle being charged had a crowd size of some 150 people, which was over the allowed 10-person limit that was in place at the time. 

Nagle’s current GiveSendGo fundraising page lists regular updates regarding the various charges incurred for speaking out against COVID mandates.  

Probation sentence a tool to discourage ‘speaking out,’ nurse says

Nagle said her two-year probation now means she “[c]annot commit a crime,” and “must keep the peace” and be on “good behavior and not commit the same offense,” which she said would impede her ability to speak freely.  

“It just seems crazy that when this probation is over it will be 2026! That to me just seemed absurd to think this is still looming in the background until then,” she noted in a recent email to her followers. 

“It was difficult to listen to them talk about the possibility of the next thing, and that we can’t have people going against public health measures in a crisis. It would be naive of them to think that we won’t find ourselves in something similar again, so this probation is to stop me from speaking out or going against public health measures should another ‘public health emergency’ find us again,” she added. 

She also thanked everyone for their support in helping her, as well as everyone’s “encouragement, prayers, and financial contributions throughout the years!” 

“You have no idea how much it has meant to me and my family and lifted up my spirits when I thought I could not go on!” she wrote in her email. 

“Thank you for everything! It has meant more to me than words I am able to express!” 

Earlier this year, Nagel was also found guilty of two charges under the RAO for attending as well as organizing another rally in November of 2020. She was fined $20,000. 

Another charge against Nagle for attending an anti-lockdown protest was withdrawn. 

In 2022, she was fined $10,000 for attending an Easter church service during Ontario’s COVID lockdowns in the spring of 2021, at the Aylmer Church of God. She appealed the fine, which was later reduced to $3,750.  

As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, some healthcare workers who refused to get the COVID jabs were successful in getting positive rulings from arbitrators. 

Indeed, two workers from a Toronto area hospital who chose not to get the COVID shots and were then fired from their jobs were wrongfully terminated, an arbitrator ruled. 

Many other recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose to not get the shots and were fired from their jobs as a result. 

Draconian COVID mandates, including those surrounding the experimental mRNA vaccines, were imposed by both the provincial Ford government as well as the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

In April 2021, the Ontario provincial government once again increased its COVID measures and declared a state of emergency over rising cases of the virus. It then put in place a complete ban on all outdoor gatherings that, in effect, made peaceful protests illegal in the province. 

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots themselves have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children. 

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result of this, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X