I am just saying that 6000 scientists willing to put their name on a document is a big deal.
You're not wrong - and at the beginning of the pandemic hundreds of scientists from around the world signed a letter and tens of thousands supported it, which was sent to the UK Government telling them to grow up when they were talking about herd immunity being a viable stratagem.
So who's science is better? Well, neither. It's the same science. It's ones interpretation of that science which is the key to yes/no on the Barrington thing.
Personally, I think it comes down to how much you think your freedom is worth...
Some say there is no price to personal freedom, any cost is acceptable. Some say if my freedom effects someone else's freedom, we must work towards equality (Example: Abraham Lincoln and the abolishing of slavery). In the Pandemic, there is the "Acceptable Risk" segment of opinion which states if there is a minimal risk, it must be accepted to preserve freedoms no matter how many of those minimal risk people die. There is also a "Hollistic" segment of opinion who state although there is indeed a minimal risk part of the population it is not a minimal transmission part of the population and it will find its way from those least likely to die to those most likely to die.
[personal thoughts] Do I think my freedom is worth paying for with other persons freedoms? No, never. But that's what happens when someone dies from COVID because someone else didn't wear a mask or socially distance or quarantine when they were diagnosed with COVID because 'Mah Freedumz'. You've not only removed their freedoms short term, you've removed their freedoms permanently term because you have ended their lives. It is the ultimate in anti-freedom, in terms of removing freedoms it's worse than segregation, it's worse than locking people up in a ghetto, it's worse than slavery - because the alternative of wearing a mask and keeping your distance is just
so easy to do for the want of a little cooperation across a population. You want proof? New Zealand. They went early and they went hard and their record, despite a few small blips, has been exemplary. They are back to normal while the rest of the worlds leadership um's and ah's about how many dead is an acceptable number. [/personal thoughts]
Another massive problem with the Science is it is not yet complete and will not be for many years, if ever. The UK's early approach was wrong because they didn't and still didn't fully know the effects of this new virus and approached it thinking it was just like Viral Pneumonia. Well it isn't and when you base your response to something on assumptions of what you want it to be rather than what it is, you are carrying an umbrella in the sunshine and wearing flip-flops in the snow. The knowledge we have to this point says it should be minimal risk hence the Barrington reaction - but we do not know what longer terms effects are, like those still suffering months later with 'Long COVID' conditions - a known unknown. What if it turns out long term multiple exposures to COIVD-19 sterilizes the young? The Barrington concept would render whole countries with an aging population anyway a crisis unlike any known today because the population won't be able to sustain itself in any way close to what is required for economies etc to remain boyant. Unknown unknowns are shadows not to jump at, but to be wary of incase they contain an assailant who would do you harm.
We have to accept yes, there are known knowns. We also have to accept there are known unknowns. We also have to consider the possibility that there are unknown unknowns too.
Should we rely solely on the known knowns and be react when new knowns come along? Would it be too late once we know things we should have taken easy precautions on?
Should we accept the known unknowns and approach them with caution, like social distancing and masks, until they become knowns and we can react to them confidently with knowledge? We are doing that now but many refuse and rile against it.
Or with unknown unknowns, Should we throw bodies at the virus untill all the unknown unknowns and all the known unknowns are known? We've lost a million already and still don't have all the answers. How many more? We've got 7.8 billion people, at what percentage dead would we have to reconsider that strategy? And would we be able to reverse the tide once it had rolled in?
