In light of current evidence,
to what extent do you support a "Focused Protection" policy against COVID-19,
like that proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration?

aggregated votes
votes by country
votes by field
votes by gender
votes by day

current thinking:

process vote code

175, Wednesday, 02-Feb-22 09:42:47 UTC, plant & animal science, voting: fully

The lockdowns seem to have led to a mass formation that has effectively silenced critical thinking in many places around the globe. A far-reaching precautionary principle has focused on one aspect only: COVID-19 case numbers. The opportunity costs of the lockdowns have been neglected. While the impact of the virus is clearly diminishing, the effects of the lockdowns on mental wellbeing will only become clear in the coming years. Especially children, for whom social interaction and facial expression are a crucial part of the learning process, will likely suffer long-term consequences. After nearly three years, it is time to rationally analyse the available data from a variety of scientific perspectives and move forward, with a renewed respect for those facets of humanity that have been neglected for too long.

172, Tuesday, 01-Feb-22 14:39:11 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: none

The risk of adverse outcomes is much higher for natural immunity than for vaccination, even among low risk groups. Once herd immunity is achieved (mostly through vaccination), then can the 'focused protection' approach be plausible.

171, Tuesday, 01-Feb-22 12:16:41 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: fully

While early in the pandemic there were big uncertainties, the experience of the last 20 months have shown that a 'Focused Protection' policy is the most effective policy that would minimise harm. Other policies have largely failed and have been ineffective but cause serious unwanted effects.

167, Wednesday, 30-Dec-20 22:12:38 UTC, physics, voting: partially

I PARTIALLY support 'Focused Protection' policy against COVID-19 as all of us are going through an unprecedented situation which is being faced and perceived differently at every level in countries battling against COVID-19. Each country is going through such a complex situation and each country has its own challenges to tackle COVID-19 situation, be it public health administration or socioeconomic challenges arising due to strategies implemented to curb the spread among masses. It is highly important to bridge the gap between a policy/strategy on a paper and perceiving multi-dimensional ground realities faced by the citizens and administration. It is a highly challenging job for administrators and decision makers in any country to come up with highly effective policies/strategies to handle such an unprecedented situation. it is also difficult to stick to any particular set of policies/strategies as the situation is highly dynamic. It is to be also observed to what extent a set of policies/strategies implemented in any country are strictly followed in a top to bottom approach and there is a need to evaluate their impacts at all levels by administrators, decision/policy makers, academicians/professionals and citizens in every country. There will be gaps in implementing efficient policies/strategies to fight against COVID-19'' as humans are not perfect all the time but what is important is to learn from our mistakes and do our best to implement what is effective based on the ground realities in every country, to protect the interests of citizens and to prevent the spread of COVID-19. I therefore PARTIALLY support '''Focused Protection''' policy against COVID-19. I highly appreciate initiatives taken to carry out such a survey. It is an important step in battling against ongoing COVID-19, understanding socio economic challenges faced in every country and to prepare us efficiently to tackle such unprecedented situations in future.''''

160, Tuesday, 29-Dec-20 18:46:52 UTC, environment/ecology, voting: mostly

Firstly, governments should discuss with citizens all issues and challenges resulting from the pandemic outbreak. Secondly, governments should be much more open for suggestions coming from academia. Then, when receiving brand new knowledge about COVID-19 and its impacts, governments should use it, share with citizens, and educate, educate, and educate. Every decision suggested in the mentioned declaration should be introduced to the society with the maximum care and responsibility. We should be very keen to understand people's fears or reluctance.

159, Tuesday, 29-Dec-20 17:05:53 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: partially

In theory, I agree with the statement. But in practice, I do not think it's feasible - uncontrolled community transmission inevitably leaks into the 'protected' population. Maybe we need a logistically feasible 'focused protection' plan before giving up controlling community spread.

155, Wednesday, 23-Dec-20 13:19:12 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: none

The COVID19 is a unique pandemic. No one is an expert. The scientists of the Barrington Declaration are expressing an opinion. From am MD's point of view, with the current limitations, we are having trouble in treating all the patients. I cannot think of what could have happened without

154, Tuesday, 22-Dec-20 13:07:49 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: partially

There remains so much unknown about COVID-19 even at this stage and a lot of confusing contradictory information. I think more research needs to be done on people who remain asymptomatic and without antibodies to pin down how they have escaped the infection.

153, Tuesday, 22-Dec-20 02:05:47 UTC, environment/ecology, voting: partially

Protecting only the 'high risk' group may not be the best solution. Protection must be extended to all. The impact of the current lockdown policy is not as devastating compared to the impacts that maybe caused by lifting/loosening the lockdown policy.

152, Tuesday, 22-Dec-20 01:02:56 UTC, agricultural sciences, voting: partially

Whether Herd immunity protect whole community has not been proven yet.

151, Monday, 21-Dec-20 22:26:14 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: none

I live in a country where extinguishing the virus until vaccination is likely possible, so for us, the GBD approach is very risky as it may expose a wider range of people to the virus than is needed. Also, protecting some people is more difficult than having simple rules that apply to all.

149, Monday, 21-Dec-20 17:32:11 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: partially

The option of reducing the barriers/lockdowns so significantly in certain low-risk groups seems to me risky. Hope in herd immunity without vaccines is to expect a large part of the population to become ill with a significant number of deaths. I think a more cautious position is better. Fortunately vaccination will contribute to herd immunity increase.

148, Monday, 21-Dec-20 17:01:24 UTC, immunology, voting: little

children attending school seem to have an important role in transmission of SARS-CoV-2, especially secondary schools might play a considerable role in transmission between households.

147, Monday, 21-Dec-20 14:21:17 UTC, agricultural sciences, voting: partially

I am of the view that the implementation of a fully focused protection policy against COVID-19 may be susceptible to conspiracy theory

144, Monday, 21-Dec-20 13:32:46 UTC, economics & business, voting: partially

While I agree with differentiated protection, I do not agree with fully resuming regular activities of low vulnerable people. Complete social isolation of vulnerable people is impossible and allowing others to resume regular life increases probability of contagion for vulnerable people as well.

143, Monday, 21-Dec-20 13:29:31 UTC, economics & business, voting: none

Our hospitals are running out of capacity already WITH the measures we have. The declaration is therefore nothing else than wishful fantasy. Of course, in developing countries, priorities might have to be slightly different, but that's another story.

142, Monday, 21-Dec-20 12:54:28 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: little

No data allow to ensure that this strategy will be effective

137, Monday, 21-Dec-20 10:08:12 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: little

I agree that lockdown measures have negative effects on economy, but also some health issues, but I don't agree with completely isolating older people from the rest of the society. I also don't believe that it works. Only a strategy that reduces circulation of the virus in the entire society will work.

136, Monday, 21-Dec-20 10:03:21 UTC, environment/ecology, voting: little

There is no scientific evidence that it works

135, Monday, 21-Dec-20 09:55:08 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: little

Public health messaging about very simple rules (e.g., masking, quarantining, lockdown instructions) is already complicated and proving to be ineffective unless very carefully designed and adapted. Also, the public health machinery is already stretched in handling the crisis. Hence I do not think that a set of detailed protocols for micro managing the population can be implemented and monitored at a fine grained scale. There are too many variables to control and orchestrate successfully, and we do not probably also possess the data monitoring systems to ensure that such a fine grained operation proceeds as planned in real life, as opposed to stylized models that may indicate good chances of success.

134, Monday, 21-Dec-20 09:32:05 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: fully

For the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis From Shattered Goals to Meaning in Life: Life Crafting in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic From Shattered Goals to Meaning in Life: Life Crafting in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of Covid-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information Processing Failures

131, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 23:41:22 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: partially

In Indian setting with higher population density and persons from multiple generations living in the same household, it will be very difficult to implement focused protection.

130, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 21:36:14 UTC, environment/ecology, voting: little

The Great Barrington Declaration is not based on sound scientific evidence

128, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 17:32:54 UTC, pharmacology & toxicology, voting: none

Focused protection only is not evidence-based and vulnerable people are not only inactive elderly

125, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 11:33:29 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: mostly

Amidst the chaos and rising human toll caused by COVID-19, proper mitigation measures need to be taken and implemented. Building trust in the community is necessary,So policies, administrative measures and essential regulatory changes remain fruitful

122, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 10:14:06 UTC, engineering, voting: little

we are already in the second wave, the declaration is too old. Not much sense to fill the questionnaire now unless you control for response date.

118, Wednesday, 16-Dec-20 08:27:05 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: partially

There are plenty of scientists who feel differently. Sunetra Gupta is at one end of a spectrum. I have seen her on the media. She is clearly a polarising individual.

116, Tuesday, 15-Dec-20 20:55:28 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: fully

I've personally seen the harm to people, communty, and the economy by an extended full lockdown in the State of Victoria, Australia.

114, Tuesday, 15-Dec-20 10:00:20 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: little

Reasons: There are many (scientific, practical, ethical, etc.) reasons already mentioned by previous voters to choose 'none'; but I opted for 'little' because I do agree that there is potential damage in 'lockdown'-like approaches that should be (or should have been) better accounted for in current policies.

111, Monday, 14-Dec-20 15:09:25 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: none

The Great Barrington Declaration is not based on sound scientific evidence

110, Monday, 14-Dec-20 14:13:49 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: none

This statement is based on the erroneous assumption that older people live or should live in isolation. In any country where coexistence between different generations is still the norm (I am thinking of Italy, where I come from, but also Greece, which I know well, and many other Mediterranean countries) such a strategy would not be feasible. It would sound like yet another 'libertarian' promise, killing communities to safeguard the freedoms of individuals. I spent three weeks at his house, taking care of my father who was sick with covid-19. Instead, propose strengthening home care, support for large families and the possibility of quickly activating 'covid hotels' for those who are positive and live in large families.

108, Monday, 14-Dec-20 11:41:11 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: mostly

There is no one way of approaching the pandemic, but the focused protection is a good measure if also used with some measure of lockdowns and restrictions. For example, people need to show cause to be at a particular place like anyone going into the train station should show a ticket, same for airports.

107, Monday, 14-Dec-20 11:33:36 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: none

I believe this was the first strategy of the UK government and also Sweden. Even with vaccine already being distributed, I haven't seen any evidence that this works yet.

105, Monday, 14-Dec-20 10:56:20 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: partially

The GB Declaration is not very nuanced, eg 'Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume.' But as we move into 2021 with vaccination taking place and a better understanding of the virus, a period of focused protection may make good sense, without necessarily holding possible super-spreader events.

100, Sunday, 13-Dec-20 08:57:04 UTC, arts & humanities, voting: fully

The scholarly approach is very sound and convincing

97, Saturday, 12-Dec-20 05:04:26 UTC, engineering, voting: little

_''Focussed protection_'' is inherently selfish and based on wishful thinking rather than evidence.

92, Friday, 11-Dec-20 09:15:43 UTC, plant & animal science, voting: little

The second wave is evidencing that herd immunity is still not in reach, and COVID-19 is having also adverse effects in non-at-risk groups. However, a balance with other needs (individual freedom, economy) is needed - i.e. disease control is no justification of authoritarism

91, Friday, 11-Dec-20 08:43:26 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: little

Focused protection may undermine the right of the so-called less vulnerable groups and deprive them of protection. I understand that some groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19, but mortality associated with this pandemic indicates that everyone is at risk. Focusing on the most vulnerable groups is as good as denying millions of people access to protective health services. The protection of older adults can be prioritized but not at the expense of others.

87, Friday, 11-Dec-20 04:55:53 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: fully

I agree with policy

84, Friday, 11-Dec-20 03:35:54 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: little

The crux of the issue is how many people can comply with this regulation under the guidance of the government. According to the current situation of the spread of COVID-19, if the source of infection cannot be cut off, cluster infections can easily occur. Therefore, if you support this policy, it depends on the degree of implementation of the country's people, which depends on the joint efforts of all people. However, it seems more difficult.

83, Thursday, 10-Dec-20 17:54:22 UTC, multidisciplinary, voting: none

1) I think it is impossible to separate the young from the elderly so completely as this policy requires. Attempting it will disproportionately affect lower-income and minority families unable to separate older generations to a separate dwelling. 2) The statement references heavily the idea of natural herd immunity which currently is irrelevant with <25% population infected/recovered outside cities with severe outbreaks. Reaching natural herd immunity even among'_healthy individuals prior to widespread vaccine availability is impossible. 3) Because of such fundamental issues, this declaration sets a dangerous message that municipalities can safely return to a hybrid-normal life without any ability (or specific criteria) to enforce these policies/guidelines. 4) we cannot say what debilitating, lifelong health impacts in individuals <65 age who recover from covid will be, again making the case for natural herd immunity reckless and, in a public health perspective, irresponsible.

79, Thursday, 10-Dec-20 16:00:20 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: little

I have chosen 'none' because there is one aspect of the declaration that I can agree with. That is: there is the potential damage from a 'lockdown'-like approach. This should be accounted for in designing policy. If possible, these negative consequences are to be mitigated.

75, Thursday, 10-Dec-20 10:36:02 UTC, physics, voting: mostly

It is helpful to the people in absence of any specific drugs or vaccine.

73, Thursday, 10-Dec-20 10:32:53 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: little

I agree about the damages and negative impacts of the restrictions implemented to contain the pandemic. Nevertheless, focusing on some categories of population would be unfair and cannot be easily done in a complex world like the one we're living here. We cannot think to our cities, towns and little villages as closed communities to be broken according to health issues.

72, Thursday, 10-Dec-20 10:22:23 UTC, economics & business, voting: little

The Great Barrington Declaration is a politically motivated statement from a small subset of medical people who have ignored transmission issues e.g from children with a low probability of suffering from Covid-19 to more vulnerable adults

71, Wednesday, 09-Dec-20 22:51:48 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: partially

I am of opinion that psychologically and socio-economically, the pandemic is causing a lot of harm. So in essence I agree that communities should open up to allow for the most normal life one could live. However, it is evident that irrespective of whom you are or what your age, you are not untouchable by the pandemic. It is not always true that it is mostly the elderly that is more at risk of dying from the pandemic. In our country, in speaking with medical staff, it is mentioned that most patients are between the ages of 30-50 and has co-morbidities. I do believe there should be some level of lockdown through but not as severe as it currently stands. We are also challenged with underprivileged communities where social distancing is not possible. So one needs to look at this declaration from different perspectives.

65, Wednesday, 09-Dec-20 07:40:17 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: fully

We must shield and protect vulnerable people. We must keep essential protection measures (personal distance, hand washing, etc.). Crowding in public places must be prohibited, but we must not lockdown people and activities, only in extreme cases when the pandemic explode. Now it is different. The virus has spread. Immunity is higher.

63, Tuesday, 08-Dec-20 17:20:03 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: little

there is no evidence that focussed protection works

60, Tuesday, 08-Dec-20 10:12:27 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: none

young people do not have serious symptoms but they are carriers of the infection for more vulnerable persons

57, Tuesday, 08-Dec-20 06:38:46 UTC, chemistry, voting: little

Each country has unique conditions and availability of infrastructure. Also, I am not certain if one can truly believe the accuracy of the statistics that are trustworthy in South Africa. Additionally, covid-19 resulted in severe disruptions of treatment systems that were established for treatment of tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

54, Monday, 07-Dec-20 18:37:05 UTC, engineering, voting: none

(1) The large number of cases of COVID-19 in care homes clearly shows that the concept of 'focused protection' is deeply flawed. (2) My own (unpublished) computer simulations of COVID-19 confirm that 'focused protection' is better than no protection at all, but still leads to an unacceptable death rate. (3) At least one of the authors of the Declaration has published work on COVID-19 that is so biased that I consider it borderline scientific fraud. (4) Several statements in the Declaration are factually incorrect. (5) The Declaration only focuses on mortality and completely ignores the huge morbidity burden of COVID-19.

52, Monday, 07-Dec-20 10:33:22 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: fully

Sweden is far more successful

51, Monday, 07-Dec-20 10:26:54 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: little

The only thing I agree with is that it is important to take into account the harms of the mitigation measures and who they affect. However, the proposed strategy has many scientific flaws including: (i) no assurance that natural immunity will last (hence herd immunity may never be reached without a vaccine), (ii) unclear how to protect the most vulnerable when there is widespread transmission in other parts of the population, (iii) ignores the high burden of Covid (including long Covid) in the non-'vulnerable' population, even if the mortality rate has been lower.

49, Monday, 07-Dec-20 09:16:20 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: none

Actually no strong scientific evidences are about focused protection. There will be many health risks for both less and high vulnerable population.

33, Saturday, 05-Dec-20 14:39:11 UTC, immunology, voting: partially

totally agree with the concept, and totally agree about school and university policies. I less agree with bars/restaurants policies. Sport on open spaces agree, but would say art and similar activities would need some limitations/reorganizations.

29, Thursday, 03-Dec-20 22:14:19 UTC, biology & biochemistry, voting: none

Policies should be done according with data and models. The proposition of total reopening is to extreme in my point of view, and working from home is a good action to reduce the spread (this coefficient is crucial in every mathematical model of the epidemic). Suggested actions towards vulnerable people are relevant though.

28, Thursday, 03-Dec-20 17:26:25 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: none

In theory it sounds very nice but successful implementation will not be possible. Trying to build herd immunity by this method would lead to increased infections and deaths.

27, Thursday, 03-Dec-20 11:39:36 UTC, psychiatry/psychology, voting: partially

I agree with the rationale, but I think that the real challenge is in implementation.

26, Thursday, 03-Dec-20 10:36:36 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: none

there is no evidence that focussed protection works

23, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 20:12:02 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: mostly

It would be also interest to record the age of the participants to this survey

16, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 08:50:27 UTC, economics & business, voting: none

Focused protection seems to involve targeting (and in effect, punishing) the vulnerable in our society. If we look at what has happened in the UK with ineffective measures to support the lockdown (Cummings fiasco, appallingly bad track and trace system, lack of quarantining of international visitors) and compare the effectiveness of stricter strategies in Australia and New Zealand, where borders still have restrictions, but largely the populations are living normally, then we can question, which is more successful? It's not about focused protection.

15, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 08:42:13 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: partially

Mass quarantine versus focused and smart limitation strategies, both are the opposite ends of a spectrum. The governments should follow their local epedimiological and clinical status of the disease and set a flexible strategy toward the current pandemic. By the flexible I mean the goverments may decide mass quarantine or go for focused protection only by monitoring their status

14, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 06:04:46 UTC, social sciences, general, voting: mostly

I am mostly in support because, the policy offers a viable approach to reducing the damages to the society. I am only concern about the human tendency of not taking the hygiene and other measures seriously which could prolong the pandemic.

13, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 03:29:08 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: mostly

I agree with this policy; however, the real task is how we imply in the routine practice. Some of us may not agree with this rationale and may violate this rule and result in ineffective implementation.

10, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 02:20:15 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: fully

I agree completely as this is the best way to go. However it would be difficult to implement it in countries where families live as a close knit ones.. with elderly living with them and not in old age centres

8, Wednesday, 02-Dec-20 00:52:31 UTC, environment/ecology, voting: none

With retaining most of the economic activities, there are countries control this disease well Like Taiwan and New Zealand and the vaccine is under way. With mass quality masking everywhere, Taiwan is able to allow international students and business travellers to arrive with its measures and has a positive GDP growth. With less face covering culture, NZ choose to has more strict border measures. They are both doing the jobs. So what is the point of giving up?

6, Tuesday, 01-Dec-20 22:23:49 UTC, molecular biology & genetics, voting: none

with this virus very little likelihood of achieving herd immunity through natural infection that is durable

3, Tuesday, 01-Dec-20 17:09:41 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: partially

Focussed protection - prioritising those at risk rather than overall suppression - has been the approach used for 'flu since forever, and now proposed for prioritised allocation of the vaccine. I don't support the Barrington strategy of allowing the disease to spread without suppression, as this will lead to overshoot and twice as many cases as the herd-immunity threshhold number of cases (assuming a lowish herd immunity - my guess is its in the 30-40% range).

1, Tuesday, 01-Dec-20 16:28:08 UTC, clinical medicine, voting: none

The declaration builds on unproven and disputed assumption like herd immunity for coronaviruses. Firstly, aquiring herd immunity by natural infection was never been an antivirus strategy against any serious pathogen, since it is unethical as it implies the maximum number of victims. Secondly, having maximum number of infections in the population, primarily affects people at risks of serious complication due to receiving care (see results in Sweden and the Netherlands). Thirdly, herd immunity was never achieved for coronaviruses, like the common cold strains, and it seems unlikely that it would be achieved here.