I never suggested Bhattacharya rebutted the "GBD"! I said he backed away from it. He has, but he remains a convinced opponent of lockdowns. What he has done is accept that the vaccines were developed more quickly than he thought possible and have made a difference.

[Link]

The "GBD" proposed isolating only the most vulnerable. I did not suggest the "GBD" proposed no protection at all. The critics poured scorn on the idea saying it was impractical, untested, and impossible to know who was actually vulnerable as the impact on co-morbidities was not known.

We know there were fake names on the list. Good that you accept that. What we don't know is if any of the others, apart from the original 3, are real, because there was no verification. I don't doubt some are and were initially attracted to the idea. I though doubt too many remain convinced, given the level of opposition from the scientific community as a whole.

You appear determined to regard these "names" as providing conclusive evidence of the wisdom of the "GBD" whilst placing no value at all on the overwhelming body of scientific opinion which opposes it. Nor do you pay any attention to its sponsors and the motivations of those behind it.

From the BMJ:- [Link]

From the Lancet:- [Link]

Also from the Lancet:- [Link]

From the Science Media Centre, with well-argued dismissals:-
[Link]

From Queens University, Ontario, with well-argued dismissals:-
[Link]

"I don't feel as though what transpired was worthy of being called intelligent or wise....I regard it as frightened group think and arse covering." (stirling says)

Indeed, the decisions made seemed to be based on how best to avoid any culpability for bad outcomes.

I was away for a few days and so on return considered not replying to this because it's just repeating the same stuff.....but it's important, at least to me, that some points on your post are pointed out.

As I stated if there are fake names on the list then there is no way of knowing who was putting them there.....There is a lot of money ranged against criticism of vaccines policies and as I stated that's where I suspect this came from.

I will again state that your suggestion that the major figures published in this official announcement are somehow unaware or don't agree with their inclusion comes with no evidence and seems frankly absurd.....similarly you over egging Bhattacharya's comments, which were just clearing up some of the myths people had about what the declaration says.

Now to comment on the links you use:

The first one is from an organisation that I have some time for in how much I have read it anyway.....The BMJ.

The 2021 article you linked to was actually the example I was pointing to when I referring to exposing the motivations behind the commentary...which is frankly quite amusing considering you talk about doubting the motivations of people based upon sponsors yourself yet seem to give your own a pass....and those that supported these policies had all the money behind them.

If you scroll down the article the BMJ state that

'Competing interests: Gavin Yamey has received research funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, both of which support COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. He was an unpaid member of the World Bank’s COVID-19 Vaccine Development Taskforce and an unpaid adviser to Gavi in the design of COVAX. He has written articles, including in TIME, in support of public health measures to curb COVID-19 (including masks; test, trace, isolate, and support; distancing; workplace and school safety measures; and ventilation of buildings). He was a co-author of a Lancet correspondence, “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” (Lancet 2020;396:E71-E72) that was the basis for the Jon Snow Memorandum. DHG has no competing financial interests. He does however, edit a weblog that has published many posts pushing back against COVID-19 and antivaccine misinformation and has been critical of the GBD in particular.'

The rest of those links seem to be from 2020 and are just opposing opinion against the declaration....some reasonable objections, even if I disagree and others make the authors look a little foolish now.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2023 1.32pm)

Whilst you are entitled to this, frequently repeated, opinion you cannot escape a few basic facts. The approach you favour was considered, and rejected. It was rejected by the politicians we have all, like them or not, elected to take these decisions for us.

They decided that lockdowns were necessary and listening to the enquiry I expect that will be not only confirmed but reinforced by the identified need to act earlier and more decisively. We know they were costly. What we don’t know is the cost of not having them. Something you ignore because it didn’t happen and cannot be quantified. You just cling on to your evidence free theory. Older generations would not have had the opportunity to take the route we did because the possibility of developing these cutting edge vaccines wasn’t available. Many more would undoubtedly have died.

The risks inherent in the vaccines are tiny by comparison with the benefits, not least the way severe illness has been mitigated and the spread contained.

We all want the best and the brightest representing us, but how to achieve that is a completely different subject. As is the war in Ukraine and its necessity for us.

In the meantime we have who we have until we get the chance to change them.

it was never proven that vaccines inhibited carriers from infecting others. What vaccines did potentially do (amongst other good things), they also gave people freedom to travel and mingle - and spread Covid.