A reminder that Trump's pick to head the NIH spent the entire pandemic being wrong about everything and whinging about being attacked and silenced when this was pointed out, and now does victory laps about how he was actually right all along because truth, science, evidence are only useful when they are on your side for these people.
Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington declaration outlining a focused protection approach to COVID.
To argue for this he used a paper he co-authored which claimed that COVID had a much lower mortality rate than others were suggesting because many more people than we realised had actually already caught COVID. At the time many pointed out the errors in his paper which predicted a death toll of roughly 20-40 thousand in America if 100 million Americans caught COVID. You can look up yourself how many actually died and how accurate he was here.
His co-author would later describe this estimate as 'way off', Bhattacharya just claims he was providing a range of estimates that included a lower and a higher range. If you read his article it is very clear that he was trying to argue the high range estimates which turned out to be pretty correct were flawed, and that the lower figures he was presenting were what we should be basing our response on.
Based on this inaccurate prediction he suggested the best response would be to protect the vulnerable (how? not really clear. Who is defined as vulnerable? not really clear but could be up to 1/3 of the population depending on how it's defined) while in their words "maximizing" infections among the non-vulnerable.
Great Barrington Declaration FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions about the Great Barrington Declaration.
gbdeclaration.org
Notice that some of the same people that argue we shouldn't be giving "experimental" vaccines to children were also arguing that we should be "maximising" the amount of children getting infected with a virus that at the time we knew very little about. We did not put the virus through phase 3 clinical trials, we had no idea what long term effects there would be, we had no idea what future variants might do to children.
Focused protection was a disaster in theory and in practice. In reality the way to protect the vulnerable was to reduce transmission among everyone.
Critical weaknesses in shielding strategies for COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has led to a wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions being implemented around the world to curb transmission. However, the economic and social costs of some of these measures, especially lockdowns, has been high. An alternative...
journals.plos.org
even under the unrealistic assumption of perfect shielding, hospitals would have been rapidly overwhelmed with many avoidable deaths among lower risk individuals. Crucially, even a small (20%) reduction in the effectiveness of shielding would have likely led to a large increase (>150%) in the number of deaths compared to perfect shielding. Our findings demonstrate that shielding the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among the wider population would not have been a viable public health strategy for COVID-19 and is unlikely to be effective for future pandemics
This isn't a hindsight thing, this was obvious at the time
the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifices lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible and equitable way.
The suggestions put forth by the Great Barrington Declaration are NOT based in science.
As far as I can tell the main evidence they have that they were right is that people did not like lockdowns or school closures, which I mean, of course.
The new administration is an attack on science and truth. Even the ones that actually have relevant credentials are willing to fall in line and use the respectability of their titles to sane wash people like RFK jnr, pretending that he just has some reasonable concerns despite spending his entire life spouting nothing but unreasonable concerns.