Since October 4, thousands of scientists and medical professionals around the world have signed “The Great Barrington Declaration,” a petition in support of ending Coronavirus lockdowns. The document cites the devastating global economic crisis the lockdowns have caused as a principle reason for eliminating current infection control policy. The economic collapse, according to the signers, has disproportionately damaged the livelihoods of working people all over the world.
Contrary to what many members of the media will tell you, the declaration was not authored by corrupt quacks. In fact, among the esteemed professionals who have signed the declaration is Michael Levitt, PhD, the recipient of the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013. Thousands of men and women from various fields of science and mathematics have signed the declaration, which brings much needed dialogue to the scientific analysis of COVID-19. That said, “The Great Barrington Declaration” takes a good deal for granted.
While it is obvious that people all around the world are suffering greatly from a global economic recession, the Great Barrington Declaration completely neglects moderation. I happen to agree that COVID-19 lockdowns are draconian and terribly inefficient, but it is too great a leap to suggest that “a return to normalcy” is in any way appropriate at this time. Debilitating long term effects of COVID-19, which are only just now being analyzed on a reproducible scale, require our utmost attention moving forward.
One long term effect of COVID-19 is myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. This was studied relatively recently and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study shows that COVID-19 can cause cardiomyocyte damage through sarcomere fragmentation in thick filaments of the heart. In other words, COVID-19 can infiltrate the muscle cells of your heart and cause the muscle to become microscopically disfigured. The damage can cause scarring and potentially long-term pathology that is not yet identifiable. This is of great concern for younger populations who may not experience side effects of COVID-19 until much later in life.
A majority of COVID-19 patients, especially those with comorbidities, are currently experiencing cardiac pathologies that range from mild to severe. The American Heart Association has identified a link between COVID-19 infections and an increased risk of heart failure. Pericarditis, or the inflammation of the tissue that encapsulates the heart muscle within the thoracic cage, is one possible mechanism for COVID-related heart failure. Updates come every day as the scientific community continues to unravel the mysteries of a novel virus. It is precisely this unpredictability which has led me to adjust my previous positions on current public health policy.
Opponents of COVID-19 lockdown procedures, myself included, have cited herd immunity as a possible path forward. In fact, studies such as the one from Iceland have shown that immunity to COVID-19 via B-cell antibodies can last in excess of four months. However, sustained immunity to COVID-19, and coronaviruses in general, is unreliable. Rupert Beale, PhD of the Francis Crick Institute, explained this at length in his dissent to the “Great Barrington Declaration.” Given that sustained immunity has yet to be established, and a vaccine has not yet been approved, the elimination of the majority of infection control standards could have grave consequences for millions of people.
COVID-19 is a novel virus, and the scientific community is taking immense strides with every new discovery, but it is imperative that we adjust our public policy accordingly. One must not become enamored with policy that was made scientifically obsolete months ago because it aligns with one’s political or ideological goals. COVID-19 lockdowns are unsustainable—the World Health Organization has made that clear. However, a complete return to normalcy, which I have previously supported, is not appropriate either. As is often the case, there is a middle ground that exists somewhere between draconian, unconstitutional lockdowns and aloof carelessness.
After all, in the United States, we need more dialogue and less canceling. We need less censorship and more collaboration. At the University of Chicago, our community must stay true to our founding principles. We need less raised fists and more open ears. There has never been a more dangerous time for Americans to stop listening to one another. We must not allow our current existence, and our current polarization, to impede the development of future generations of Americans.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss The Great Barrington Declaration. I have some comments regarding your article, The Declaration, and the pandemic.
The Great Barrington Declaration was written as result of the “grave concern” some of the world’s leading epidemiologists and public health scientist have about “the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.” The credentials of the group are impressive and I refer you to their website for specifics. To date, the Declaration has been signed by 10,555 medical and public health scientists and 29,121 medical practitioners – myself included. To call this document a “swing and a miss” is incredibly misguided.
“Focused Protection” as recommended by The Declaration is not a return to normal. Rather, it’s goal is to “minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.” The document clearly states the importance of protecting the most vulnerable with a “comprehensive and detailed list of measures.” Only those “who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.”
Some interesting data:
CDC COVID -19 Survivor Rates
Age 0-19: 99.997%
Age 20-49: 99.98%
Age 50-69: 99.5%
Age 70+: 94.6%
More children will die of influenza this year than COVID.
As stated by CDC director, Dr. Robert Redfield, deaths from suicide and drug overdoses among high school students currently exceed deaths from COVID.
Even a one percent increase in the suicide rate among high school students would cause more deaths than have died with COVID so far in this age group.
The loneliness expressed by my patients as a result of the lockdowns has been overwhelming, as has depression and anxiety.
No vaccine has ever been successful against coronavirus.
All previous pandemics have ended – none, successfully, because of lockdowns.
Mr. Berber refers to cardiac side effects in his article. The evolving science on COVID does not, in any way, diminish the strength of The Declaration’s argument. Certainly, COVID stresses the heart, as documented by the increase in troponin levels, at presentation to the hospital. This, however, is a response to the hyper-dynamic state that the body is in. Cases of myocarditis are rare. To detract from the Declaration’s argument, Mr. Berber would have to show the burden of chronic cardiac dysfunction is greater than the costs of suicides, depression, loneliness, missed cancer diagnoses, missed cardiac treatment, etc. Like drugs, lockdowns have serious side affects. I doubt the FDA would ever approve a medication with similar side affects.
Mr. Berber suggests that herd immunity may not be obtainable. This, again, does not detract from the Declaration’s argument. The Declaration argues that the benefits to the young less vulnerable individuals by progressing towards herd immunity are immediately realized by that population in their own right. One could rationally argue that the less vulnerable are acting in there own self interest. They are taking responsibility for their own life and are free to make their own risk benefit judgements. Defenders of Liberty surely support such a philosophy. The fact is, the greater the number of low risk individuals that are immune to the virus, the less likely vulnerable individuals will contract the virus. This argument is no less valid if complete herd immunity is never obtained.
The Great Barrington Declaration is the most rational and compassionate plan to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
Please read The Great Barrington Declaration.
Kurt Unverferth M.D.