Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

The organization of contents does not reflect the standard neutral style of Wikipedia. The reception section should be split into "Support" and "Criticism".

The following paragraph should be moved from the main description to the newly created criticism section:

" The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and unethical and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among the older generation and younger people with underlying health conditions,[11][12] and warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington 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."[9] " The amount of material included in the "Critical commentaries" that includes roughly 50% (not counting references) of the content of the page including 2/3 of the pictures should be synthesized or eventually moved in part in a dedicated page Great Barrington Declararion Criticism and a link to that page should be included.

The sentence: "[...] and other non-relevant people were found to be signatories, [...]" is disrespectful of signatories and should be rephrased.

The sentence: "The John Snow Memorandum, published in The Lancet, is a response by 80 experts in relevant fields debunking the premises of the Great Barrington Declaration." is tendentious since it implies that the authors and signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration are not experts. Moreover the use of word debunking is absolutely inappropriate since this is clearly the case of a scientific controversy on which there is no scientific consensus yet, it is important that the editors understand the fact that among authors and subscribers of the declaration there are top scientists in the fields of immunology, virology, epidemiology, biostatistics and a Nobel Price in Chemistry. Andrea Citrolo (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please only use this template to requests edits for which consensus was already been achieved, per the template usage instructions. See WP:CRITS for some discussion about why criticism sections are a bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the instructions that new editors see do not require or even encourage discussing it in advance, and the template's documentation page doesn't mention consensus at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I am confusing my templates? The instructions really should mention something about consensus for potentially controversial requests. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Suggest this way round - The Great Barrington Declaration is a proposal advocating a risk-based "alternative public health approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic that involves "focused protection" of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the "social harm" of lockdown. It was written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on 4 October 2020. . The alternative puts the signing location first, ahead of what the declaration is about. I can't think why this would be preferable. Readers coming here don't do so to find out where it was signed. They come here to find out what it is. Whatever anyone thinks about the location, it is not the primary aspect of the declaration. To put it first in the lead is, arguably, trying to make a point. Apart from anything else, my suggestion is less jarring to read. Arcturus (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think RS tells us what it's "about" is the agenda of the AIER. Thus having that framing context first is entirely appropriate, to give the most neutral introduction to this topic. More generally having a "framing shot" and then zooming in (as it were) to the declaration is good style. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The "framing context" is the COVID pandemic and the methods deployed to try and control it. Arcturus (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Or to leave it out of control. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether we want to start with a definition or suspend that until after an explanation of why whatever it is is so named. I would have thought the former would make more sense. Per the faq it was written at the AIER over two or three days and signed on 4 Oct, so that might make another improvement. I'm not well-versed in the revert rules - were agreement reached are either of you allowed to make the change? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Support long-standing version establishing what "Great Barrington" means and what the document is first rather than what is written in it. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The article Munich Agreement has it this way round: Munich first, Sudetanland next. GPinkerton (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

While the Treaty of Versailles is the other way round. If it "stays" as it is, perhaps change to proposal written at the...and signed on 4 Oct. The obsession with the AIER/Koch seems rather silly, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That may because there's rather more than one Treaty of Versailles. The Declaration of Arbroath gives date and place first. GPinkerton (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many examples of both styles in Wikipedia, but just to throw in a science-based one, we have this [1]. There's clearly no Wikipedia preferred style in this matter. I'd put it down more to writing style. Arcturus (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are eight articles about treaties of Versailles. All but one adopt the style of commencing with what the treaty is, rather then where it was signed. Arcturus (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that's because telling you a treaty of Versailles was signed at Versailles doesn't help distinguish the article from the other treaties of Versailles. This issue is not relevant here; there's only one declaration, but there have long been many Great Barringtons. The Versailles case is the opposite: one chateau, many treaties. GPinkerton (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia follows the WP:PAGs, not precedent. It is entirely proper that science-based proposals lead with the science. But (as we know from RS) this is not a science-based proposal, but a political stunt. Thus the framing need to make that clear, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the AEIR/Koch content as "silly" - per the RS, the key aspect of the Declaration is its POV, and not the subject matter; i.e., it does not represent an approach where the science comes first, but rather one where policy advocacy comes first and science comes...really nowhere at all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The POV of GBD is "a proposal advocating a risk-based "alternative public health approach". That is the point-of-view of the declaration's authors. The "science or not" argument is not pertinent to this. Arcturus (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: I think the problem there is that you've d got suckered in by the proposal's rhetoric, rather than following what RS says. Wikipedia follows RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: "alternative public health" is a close synonym of "alternative medicine". GPinkerton (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You got a reference for that assertion? And even if it is, it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. No matter whether the GBD is based on empirical research, or is a mere opinion of a few scientists - whatever it is, we should state WHAT it is, first and foremost. The place where it was signed may or may not be important. Even if it is of immense importance, this declaration should not be defined in Wikipedia in the first instance by where it was signed. Arcturus (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Since its main significance is as a kind of AIER manifesto, yeah, I think that does define it in the first instance. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. In this case "alternative public health approach" means "different public health approach". It may be bad science marshaled in the service of political goals, but it is not pseudoscience marshaled in the service of political goals.

The authors believe that the number of deaths from a strict lockdown (e.g., delayed medical treatment, suicide) would exceed the number of deaths from having younger people go to school or work in restaurants, stores and offices. This is an easily testable hypothesis with obvious biological plausibility, and they could be either right or wrong. In fact, these are pretty standard calculations, and any PhD candidate in public health ought to be able to set up the equations. (The problem the research community is having is figuring out what numbers to put into it. You'll get very different results if you say that the Infection fatality rate is 0.01% or 1%, or if you believe that the median natural immunity will prevent re-infection for six months, six years, or 60 years.)

This isn't at all like someone saying that water magically picks up the quantum resonance of onion juice particles, so drinking the water will make your eyes stop watering during hay fever season. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I get all of that, and am perfectly capable of running those equations myself. But I think your reading of the Declararion is overly charitable. For example, it calls its proposal "Focused prevention" and suggests that, while everyone except the vulnerable "resume life as normal", vulnerable people will be protected by caregivers with acquired immunity, grocery delivery, picnics with family members, and then a handwave to more comprehensive measures which public heath professionals will come up with. From an empirical standpoint, we are not even able to measure and document acquired immunity yet in a reliable way, and probably will not be able to until vaccine rollout. The entirely untested idea that grocery delivery and family picnics will keep the vulnerable population protected while the novel coronavirus runs unchecked through the "non-vulnerable" population (who are they?) is certainly somewhere on the spectum from bad science to pseudosience, but is rather closer to antivaxx magical thinking than you seem prepared to concede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to know exactly what they're thinking, because they skipped all that bothersome bit about "publish your model and show us your data" parts, and went straight to "People are sick of staying home". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Shopping list" of names

Regarding the comments in Expanded list of signatories and Co-signers about a long list of names, the same surely applies to the Counter memorandum section in the article? Arcturus (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Andreas JN466 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we go for secondary sourcing for both and delete all primary-sourced names/titles (which is all that are there right now). It's just miles to scroll past for the vast majority of readers. --Andreas JN466 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. These notable people are known to have signed, and primary sourcing is fine for that. Secondary sources are unlikely to produce so complete a record of signatories, although I notice the Daily Mail listed each and every one of the Great Barrington signatories in its effusive write-up. Wikipedia is supposed to be "vast and complete". GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a lousy model to follow :))

We may get the same problem that the GBD people had – who's gonna check every entry added here?

As I said, miles to scroll past for people. And in the GBD section, what good is a list of dozens and dozens of job titles without names? This is literally what we have:

Besides those mentioned, initial signatories included a professor of medicine and three professors at the Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University; professors emeritus of public health at the University of Arizona, of medical microbiology at the University of Mainz, and of the Indian Statistical Institute; a professor of medical informatics and life course epidemiology and a professor of computational statistics at the University of Edinburgh; a professor of modelling and epidemiology at the University of Oxford's Nuffield Department of Medicine, a professor of psychiatry, behavioural sciences, and biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine; a professor of medical statistics at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School; a professor of paediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine; a professor of genetics at the University of Leicester; an assistant professor at Karolinska Institute; a professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham; a professor of philosophy at the University of York; an associate professor of biostatistics at Baylor University; an associate professor in applied mathematics at the University of Exeter; a professor of mathematics and statistics at the University of Strathclyde; and a former official of the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

I can see a marginal point in having a list of wikilinked names, but that?

If you insist that this information should be held in Wikipedia, I'd suggest a List article that we can point to here. But again, the same problem applies: it would be very hard to curate, and the benefit seems to me to be marginal, given that the originals are online.

Thoughts? Andreas JN466 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion either way, just responding to the point that this info is otherwise available at the primary source; at the time of the Wikileaks cable releases, even The Guardian was proscribed in some circles - eg blocked for staff by the USAF [2] - though info sourced therefrom in enwiki was presumably still visible; the question of censorship has already been raised above - and indeed in Parliament, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No "list of GBD signers". Wikipedia is not a propaganda instrument. That is why the list of scientists who reject the climate change consensus was deleted and why we do not duplicate creationists' lists of creationist scientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted link

So we have the article overleaf stating, per the BMJ, that at least one of the authors is concerned about the subject matter of Famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic; adding a link to pre-existing text has been reverted on the grounds that this is ungrammatical, an easter egg, and not a minor edit. Please advise how best to add the link, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably not to, given that the concept in this article is about "risk", and the target article is currently up in the air about what its subject even is. See WP:MINOR for why such edits should not be marked as minor, and in English the idiom is that professors are "at" institutions, not professors "in" them. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If that was your grammatical question - the institution (Oxford University) is here attributive, "in" being somewhat common for internal subdivisions such as departments, eg "please speak to x in Finance" rather than "please speak to x at Finance"; as for the rest, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The link to famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic is supported by the BMJ reference at the end of the sentence. Indeed some of the main supporting material in that Wikipedia article is also referenced by the BMJ article. I reworded the description of Gupta's concerns a bit to reflect that the issue is famine, which is real, and include the link. – M.boli (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So what's the problem with the wikilink to famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic? It's linked from the main article: COVID-19_pandemic#Famine and from BMJ: Gupta said that widespread starvation was another serious consequence of lockdowns—a concern underscored by a report from the charity Oxfam,... fiveby(zero) 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem as far as I can see. Unless it's the word "famine", which has a different meaning to "starvation". That said, it's a reasonable link. Arcturus (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems pretty anodyne to me. I think the current text which says Gupta is concerned about risk of famine, with no link to actual famine, is misleading. I don't understand @GPinkerton:'s objection. – M.boli (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Famine is not the same as starvation, and the risk of either of these things is completely different to them actually occurring. The BMJ article mentions no famine, no actual starvation, only the prediction of it. It is complete OR and SYNTH to suppose anything that actually happened, famine or otherwise, is the same as what was predicted. The word famine does not appear in the BMJ, and to insert it here is completely unsupported. And yes, Arcturus and M.boli, famine is a different thing altogether to starvation, the authors are not cited as predicting famine; famine is a shortage of food, a thing very different to individual starvation. GPinkerton (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Bertrand Russell's first message from 0:18 here; current text overleaf: "concern about the risk of widespread starvation in many countries"; Famine: "A famine is a widespread scarcity of food, caused by several factors including war, inflation, crop failure, population imbalance, or government policies. This phenomenon is usually accompanied or followed by regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you proving my point. No scarcity of food is predicted in the source cited. GPinkerton (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

And what does the source suggest is the cause of widespread starvation? Interruption in food supplies, ie, food shortages for those who might otherwise eat and as a consequence... Or are you saying the BMJ shortcuts a little and requires contextual understanding from its readers? Or that because the shortages are actual there is no prediction? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither the BMJ article nor the Oxfam document cited by its author (dated 9 July) speak of "famine" in the context of COVID-19 policy. The only mention of famine by Oxfam is in the context of war and climate change, namely in Afghanistan, Yemen, in the Sahel, and elsewhere in Africa. Neither the BMJ, nor the Oxfam report, nor the Guardian article on the report speak of famine caused by lockdowns or anything else besides the usual causes of famine and the pandemic itself. There is nothing to suggest that famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic are somehow related to lockdowns per se, as the BMJ article says Gupta claimed. GPinkerton (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just quickly scanned the Famine article and this source appears to relate shutdowns with food shortages affecting many. Is your point now that sources relating lockdowns with widespread food shortages need to be supplied in support of the link? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Gupta or her prognostications in that article so adding it there would be WP:SYNTH. GPinkerton (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Some cheery readings: [3] Oxfam (Jul), [4] WFP (Sep), [5] NYT (Sep), [6] WHO (post-GBD); these all appear to suggest there's a causal link between lockdowns and loss of earnings, and between loss of earnings and inability, for many, to obtain enough food (amongst other issues); a food security crisis seems to be the topic both of the to-be-linked-or-not article and Gupta's voiced concerns, per the BMJ; so is the objection that x is concerned about y (per source); y is a valid concern (per source); but we lack a source with y its central focus that says, btw, this is what x has been saying? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Famines related to the COVID-19 pandemic article needs looking at, in my view, and should not be linked to at present. A significant proportion of the sources cited in its lead are about locust plagues causing starvation, others are forecasts from April cited as though they were commenting on the actual number of people affected by famine now, etc. --Andreas JN466 18:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In complete agreement that this needs a major update/overhaul; found it through a search for what she was talking about; I would have thought even in its current state it's better than nothing, but you think otherwise, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm quoting the article as I found it today: The famines are widely considered to be the worst series of famines since the Great Chinese Famine in 1959–61, and is projected to be among the worst famines in human history.. The sources for that statement (still in the article now ...) are really worth looking at. Just for reference, the Great Chinese Famine saw an estimated 45 million people dead over a period of three years. --Andreas JN466 00:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Note that the New York Times article you have now cited in the famine article actually says there isn't a famine. And the World Food Programme director (another reference you've added) is quoted as saying last month: Five months ago, I warned the Council the world stood on the brink of a hunger pandemic. A toxic combination of conflict, climate change and COVID-19, threatened to push 270 million people to the brink of starvation. Famine was real. It’s a terrifying possibility in up to three dozen countries if we don’t continue to act like we’ve been acting. Fortunately, since we talked about this back in April the world really listened. Donors, leaders all over the world responded, they acted. Countries large and small took extraordinary measures to save the lives of their citizens and support their economies, spending $17 trillion on fiscal stimulus and central bank support. The IMF and the G20 nations threw a lifeline to the poorest nations by suspending debt repayments. That made a huge impact. Donors stepped up with advanced funding so we could pre-position food and move cargo earlier, as well as supporting with additional life-saving dollars. With our donors’ help, the global humanitarian community launched a huge and unprecedented global fightback against the Coronavirus. That's not meant to minimise existing hardship and difficulties, only to demonstrate that there isn't currently a famine of biblical proportions ongoing in the world. --Andreas JN466 02:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

AP was using present tense back in July for 10,000 additional child deaths and 550,000 additional suffering from wasting due to coronavirus and it's restrictions. U.N. and study both in Lancet. It must take quite a bit of motivated reasoning to decide that this is not relevant. fiveby(zero) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is so hard. There's no objection to a quality wikilink (maybe link starvation or famine or something), but linking to some crappy article which is mostly about locust swarms in a different time period is just daft. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Social harm" in opening paragraph should not be in quotation marks

Why is social harm in scare quotes? Surely no one denies that lockdowns carry attendant social harms. The question is whether the harms are justifiable--sure--but the harms are harms. No one is denying that there is a social cost, surely? So no need for scare quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They're not "scare" quotes, but actual quotations of terms used. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What I always find unsatisfactory about quotation marks like that is that it's unclear to the reader who's being quoted – the publication, or the subject of the publication's report. In this case it's the Guardian that uses the expression "social harm", rather than the Declaration itself, and the same applies to the phrase "alternative public health approach", which is only used by the BMJ, and not in the Declaration itself. I'm not sure that the WP:Plagiarism concerns involved in a two-word phrase like "social harm" rise to the level of requiring quotes, but if we think they do, we could refer to the "societal harm" caused by lockdowns, for example, and remove the confusion in the reader's mind. The same applies to "alternative public health approach"; we could just shorten that to "alternative approach" and lose the quotes. Then the only quotes would be around "focused protection", a term actually used in the declaration. --Andreas JN466 09:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible to me, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Good thinking, yes. Focused Protection should continue to be in quotes. Perhaps it should be capitalised as a proper noun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can some other word than "approach" be used? I hear this twee euphemism too much. Strategy/plan/policy? GPinkerton (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe "approach" is a euphemism; but, certainly you are entitled to your own interpretation. Your pattern of partiality and bias re GBD has been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely not a Plan, and I'm doubtful about calling it a Strategy. It might be "a public policy recommendation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

We need an article about social harm. The closest I've found is Zemiology, which seems to be the study of non-criminal social harms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the relevant article in this context is harm reduction. I'm not an overlinker by temperament, but perhaps social harm would not be too much of an Easter egg, after all. Which isn't to imply that the GBD would actually reduce harm if implemented. Ahem. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't feel quite right. This is less like establishing a needle exchange, or encouraging people to vape nicotine instead of smoking tobacco, and more like saying that most people are healthier in a growing economy with lots of social interactions than during an economic depression with no friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think the rationale of nicotine patches and designated injection sites is quite strictly parallel to economic and social activity that promotes the spread of a deadly virus, but I will happily wait for others to weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the "social harm" concept is more like "kids should go to school, because losing n days of effective educational instruction before the age of 10 means that they'll be x% more likely to die as adults" and "working-class people need to go to work, because otherwise they'll be depressed, hungry, and homeless" – not "kids should go to school, so their teachers and parents can die from COVID-19". It's true that their recommended, libertarian-style method of stopping these social harms would spread the virus, but I think it's going a bit far to say that providing education, food security, stable housing, etc. is basically the same as supervising heroin users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you value the lives and health of heroin users less than I do? Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not knowing how much you value the lives and health of heroin users, it is impossible for me to make the comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Change "The proposal calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed to resume their normal lives, working normally rather than from home, socializing in bars and restaurants, and gathering at sporting and cultural events." in the lead

to

"The proposal calls for individuals who are at a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 to be allowed to resume their normal lives while protecting the most vulnerable."

Reason is that there is content not included in the sources. Specifically "as well as those at higher risk who so wish" and "working normally rather than from home, socializing in bars and restaurants, and gathering at sporting and cultural events." Joelaroche (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah, your sentence is self-contradictory, and we shouldn't put it anywhere. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm repeating what the sources say. If you think it should be different then present what you think it should it be. As of now, the sentence includes content that is not included in the sources. This violates WP:OR. Joelaroche (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the (mainstream) sources say the idea of letting the virus rip while "protecting" anyone, is an impossibility ("like a no-pee line in a swimming pool", as somebody put it). Therefore Wikipedia needs to avoid credulously relaying it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is not about the criticism of the proposal. It's about what the proposal actually calls for as described by the sources. Joelaroche (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Joelaroche, the relevant part of the GBD proposal reads: "Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish ..." That's exactly the same as the sentence you quote above, only expressed in different words. As for the idea that the most vulnerable should be protected (Focused Protection), this is mentioned in the sentence preceding the one you quote, and another aspect of protection is mentioned in the sentence following the one you quote. Have another look; I think you'll find it's all there. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

Suggest removing " (a "who's who of the epidemiological, infectious disease and vaccinology world") " and to add a suitable adjective to "80 researchers" instead. e.g. notable, relevant, prominent or eminent. The current form is clumsy and suggestive. BobDark (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. "Eminent" is used and I kept a form (hopefully better) of the fields mentioned in hopes of avoiding application of a {{who}} template. Thank you for inspiring this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Undone. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

How does one avoid the constant reverts? It's a reversion to a clumsy set up and suggestive contextualising.BobDark (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The edit request feature is to be used for edits that have consensus among the editors active on this article. The proposed edit lacks consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the edits it seems your original edit was controversial and disagreed upon. The only way it has stayed the way it has is because you seem to insist on changing it back every time another editor 'changes' it. Are you the only one not consenting? You made the initial edit...BobDark (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor BobDark:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. If you click on the "consensus" link, you will begin to understand Wikipedia's concept of consensus, which is a bit different from the usual understanding of it. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the link and I've had a read. It seems that's been tried on several occassions yet one editor seems to insist on it retaining their own change. The result being several litter 'revert' wars. What happens when consensus can't be reached? Why do you insist on it staying as it is @nomoskedasticity? What does it take to get it to a reader/grammar friendly form which would also make it less suggestive? What has been wrong with the edits that Paine and others have made which have essentially kept the meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobDark (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the "who's who" wording is a bit naff and unencyclopaedic. In any case it should be "a Who's Who" if that sort of colloquialism is to be deployed. GPinkerton (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I, too, agree that the "who's who" wording is odd for an encyclopedia. Being a quote is what saves it. I'd vote for changing the wording in a way that BobDark suggests. Perhaps move the quote down to the references or keep it as a parenthetical with citation attached. But I do not think this is a huge issue either way, which is why I've stayed out of it. – M.boli (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

446 Signatures from medical & public health scientists

This should be listed if there's going to be so much detail on the counter arguments. The majority of this page is focused on debunking something that has significantly more signatures from verified scientists than the number of researchers who contributed counter arguments. Bottom line is nobody has been proven right or wrong yet. Let the information be without bias. SavageOhh (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No evidence has been supplied that these are real people with real or important opinions, and all the actual top scientists and people that are not merely personal friends of Scott Atlas have more or less thoroughly dispelled the illusion that this is anything more than a political stunt which is now irrelevant. 6,900 scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals have now signed the John Snow Memorandum, apparently, and these are definitely real people, as if science was decided by democracy. (Or by press release, which effectively what this grandiose document is "declaring" itself as.) GPinkerton (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Bottom line is nobody has been proven right or wrong yet" - Oh yes they have! Reality has seen to that. 31.125.76.2 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Horrifically biased article

This article would work well in a journalism class, to show students what bias looks like. Every person cited on the side of the Barrington authors is hit with a cautionary note about who “sponsors” them. It is innuendo worthy of McCarthyism. No direct criticisms, instead every person is hit with “they hang out with so-and-so, and so-and-so once said X, and we don’t like X”.

The article never subjects the anti-Barrigntons with the same scrutiny. Indeed, they are quoted with no scrutiny at all. For example, the director of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom, is cited with zero context. How about mentioning he is from Ethiopia, that Ethiopia’s economy is almost completely dependent on Communist China, and that Communist China is the source of the virus?

The article cites researchers from Harvard and other places that accept funding from Drug companies, which have a huge economic interest in a vaccine being the solution to the virus puzzle, rather than herd immunity.

The anti-Barrington crowd has been wrong on just about every prediction they made on the virus. They were wrong on how many would die, they were wrong on its being a danger to the general population, they were wrong on lockdowns, etc. Yet, the article makes no mention of any of these facts.

Next, the main point made by the Barrington side is that the effects of virus countermeasures are not justified by the cost. They assert that the economic and societal costs have been staggering and outweigh the benefits of the countermeasures. They assert that societal costs, in terms of suicides, depression, alcoholism, child abuse, etc., has been very high, is ignored, and is not balanced against any possible benefits from masks, school closures, business closures, etc. This main point is almost entirely ignored by the article. The only mention is a quick mention by one anti-Barrington scientist that the Barringtons are correct on the high societal cost of the countermeasures.

The article does nothing to refute the essential point made by the Barrington Declaration. Instead, the authors spend their time on polemical and baseless attacks, supported by innuendo and guilt by association. Wikipedia claims to be unbiased and that authors who stray from fact-based articles will be punished, banned, and sanctioned. But, apparently that is not the case. If the authors of this biased mish-mash are not punished, then no one will be punished. Well, I suppose I should correct that and say no one putting out a socialistic diatribe will ever be punished. Wikipedia, you should be better than this. But apparently, you are not.

Jimbo10327 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sad! But do you have any actual suggestions for improving the article, based on reliable sources, as opposed to your own opinion? (Fixed your botched format, BTW.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You are too polite Hob ! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Jimbo. First off, the paragraph about the contents of the declaration is 15 lines long, with over 200 lines of counter-arguments. Normally, on a Wiki page, one would find a Controversies section that is 10 times smaller. Not the case here.. Also the article goes to great lengths to explore any links or ties the declaration authors might have or have not with any dubious entity. But when it comes to the John Snow memo, the article doesn't mention any conflict of interests on the part of the people signing it. This article mentions authors of the memo disclosing a wide variety of involvement with drug companies. Also, I randomly picked an author, C. Swanton, and looked for his disclosures. I quickly found this study where C. Swanton lists grants and personal fees from lots of the drug companies involved in Covid-19 vaccines and medication. These are all recent, they might as well have been listed on the John Snow article. I can see why Lancet didn't bother to post the disclosures for the John Show memo. Judging from this guy's record, the disclosures for all the people signing the john Snow memo would have probably been 10 pages longer than the memo itself... So if anyone's genuinely interested in fixing this laughable article, here's a starting point - mention the disclosures for the JS memo original authors. I'm a lousy editor and I also doubt this info would have stayed in the article for more than a day or two. If someone with higher authority and better skills sees this, please mention the disclosures. One more thing - The article cites the JS memo for saying that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2". That is correct and it closely follows Wiki procedures i.e. this one of the most heavily-quoted excerpts from this memo. It's also one of the dumbest thigs I've read in a while. I mean, it's a new virus - how can one have evidence for "lasting immunity" within 9-12 months of its discovery? And it gets worse - cause it comes from people encouraging us to have the vaccine - for which there's even less evidence of lasting immunity (with trials having started 3-4 months ago). In the end, take this from a guy who's written thousands of newspaper articles over the years: If I would have read this in a newspaper my first thought would have been "This author is very bad at hiding his true intentions"...Razvan mod (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the points relating to improving the article (as opposed to casting aspersions).

• the paragraph about the contents of the declaration is 15 lines long, with over 200 lines of counter-arguments Refutations of bullshit are always longer than the bullshit itself. See Brandolini's law. There is no Wikipedia rule that says fringe opinions should get a given minimum amount of space.
• But when it comes to the John Snow memo, the article doesn't mention any conflict of interests on the part of the people signing it You need reliable sources connecting those to the Great Declaration if you want to add them to the article. See WP:OR.
• The article cites the JS memo for saying that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2" Which is another good reason not to do the "let's bet many thousands of lifes on this loony idea of doing essentially nothing" thing. The people who suggested the loony idea must be so dumb that this obviously true "dumb thing" has not occurred to them, or so unscrupulous that they do not care, so pointing it out seems to be necessary.

So, nothing to do here. I hope I wasn't too polite again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Every time I use Wikipedia, which is increasingly infrequently, I'm inundated with pleas for donations. It's after reading this article that I decided I'd never give Wikipedia a penny of my money again. A horrifically, blatantly biased and politicised article with not a shred of merit. Wikipedia is great for dates, mathematical formulae and geographical data, but can be relied upon to be grotesquely biased and disingenuous about anything remotely political, even to the point of an outright assault on science, which is what this article amounts to. Daedalus 96 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

New contributions go to the bottom. And you misunderstand: The article is about an assault on science. Not our fault. Though it's great that you decided to withhold the bribes you erroneously call "donations" (donations are not quid pro quo). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to make any judgements as to the scientific merits of the GBD itself, and it's likely that you're not either, given that we're talking about an immensely specialised and novel topic in modern epidemiology. Nevertheless, my issue is not with whether or not GBD is scientifically sound, but with the editorial standards of the article. If GBD is scientifically inadequate, this should be explained using objective, reliable facts; not crude, schoolboy innuendo and smear tactics. Daedalus 96 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not immensely specialized. It's basic epidemiology and the GBD knowingly and deliberately flies in the face of all human understanding of disease transmission. GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if that's true, and there are very many people much more qualified than you who would say otherwise, it doesn't address the point I was making, which is that the GBD's "lies" could then be addressed using objective, unbiased argument free of ad hominems. This article, on the other hand, resorts to shallow gossip and guilt by association, shaming the scientific method. Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, the article has nothing to do with the scientific method and everything to do with "science" by press release. I wonder why they couldn't find a university or even a vaguely academic institute to host their little soiree and had to use a hard-right American think tank as their sponsor and namesake. Guilt? Who said anything about guilt? Someone got a guilty conscience or what? GPinkerton (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It's impossible to see how the American Institute for Economic Research's views on climate change, which Ms Gupta herself rightly believes to be a real problem, are a relevant factor in the merits of the GBD. It's plain guilt-by-association, and one could point to so many other instances of the same tactic in this article that it's impossible to assume goodwill on the part of whoever wrote the offending passage. Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop generalizing your own inability to do something. (You did that above too, when you claimed that other people cannot judge the merits of the claims just because you cannot. I would even say it's not just basic epidemiology, it is basic math.) Other people can see it. AIER's job is to distort science for propaganda reasons. Their goal is as few regulations as possible. So, they give a podium to everybody who can help them achieve that. Climate-change deniers with scientific credentials whose faulty ideas will not pass peer review? They love that. Same with COVID-19. Whatever they touch is tainted.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Pseudoscientists try to smuggle bad ideas in, using less-than-reliable sources, and there are red lights all over this one that indicate it is such a case. You may not be able to see them, but that is your problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion that the greatest public health issue of modern times is just a matter of basic maths is plainly incorrect, not that that's my issue, which has more to do with this article's bias. Would you kindly answer my question, then, as to how AIER's views on climate change are relevant to the GBD? Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, it's obvious they have an ideological opposition to science, its conclusions, and government regulations flowing from the neglect of the public good in pursuit of profit. Climate change denial, epidemiological denial, it's all the same. AEIR is doing both and for the same reasons. It's their mission statement. I don't see how it could not be relevant. Ideological policies should not be treated in isolation to one another when presented as part of a suite of right-wing policies. It not different to the rebranding of the Faragists as anti-science people just after they corroded their own policy platform of anti-immigration people. The refocusing of the Trumpists as Luddites in favour of this mediaeval policy. The same politicians, the same lobbyists, the same ideologues, the same plutocrats. It's not possible to praise the autobahns in isolation to the slave labour policies that helped them spring up at such an inexpensive rate. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The idea that AEIR is anti-science or "Luddite" is just a personal opinion. But even if they were Nazis, it wouldn't make a jot of difference unless you could show that this influenced the content of the GBD, which neither you nor anybody else has done here to date. Daedalus 96 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, please read the reliable sources to which these facts are cited. AEIR is known for its anti-science position on climate change, that is not an opinion, it's their raison d'être. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article is miscategorized. The document was published and promoted by a Libertarian organization with a political and anti-science policy agenda. However the article seems to me glaringly unfair against the three authors and their views, filled with innuendo and guilt-by-association.

At a minimum I'd remove from the lede section two contentious pieces:

• The sentence beginning The declaration makes no mention of... in the 2nd paragraph of the lede section. These are non sequiturs in the context of the lede, although they deserve discussion and indeed are discussed later in the article.
• The last part of the last sentence: that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial. This is quite properly discussed in Sponsor section.

I'd also remove the part about the prank signatures. That an online petition attracts prank signatures is hardly noteworthy. -- M.boli (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't wholly disagree re miscategorisation, discussion of which by the way belongs in a separate section below. To my mind, the fact is that this article has so many manifest faults that it would need to be completely rewritten to be anything other than an affront to Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia. Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

M.boli, the fact that it invited them is very noteworthy, as is the fact their favourable media quoted all these supposed experts as though they were real in classic partisan style. GPinkerton (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Deceitful phrasing of "The declaration makes no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of testing and tracing"

It makes it sound like those 3 authors have never heard of masks or other measures. The fact they do not mention it does not mean that they(as implied by wording) are ignorant of it. They just think it does not work as good as herd immunity, and it should be obvious to anybody who understands their point. They are not claiming that masks/social distancing does not prevent the spread of COVID, only that it more effective to let COVID spread as it would without the lockdowns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.85.29 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence makes it sound like the authors have never heard of these things. If anything, I think it makes it sound like they think these things are somewhere between irrelevant and undesirable. According to your comments, that implication is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 77.248.85.29 regarding deceitful phrasing. The declaration do mention PCR testing. Other examples for misleading or un-objective writing include putting outside-declerations such as reference 16 ("The Great Barrington Declaration Is Not Saying 'Lock Up Grandma'") as if they are a part of the true signed declaration; and repeating critical comments all over the page (e.g. reiterating the statement by Rhea K. Farberman et al. ). I hope this very problematic wikipedia article will be opened for revision as soon as possible. Tsabarn (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsabarn, It makes no mention of mass testing contact tracing; the only PCR testing it mentions is for care staff. GPinkerton (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, You are right, maybe this specific item is not truly deceitful. How about social distancing related measures such as "groceries and other essentials delivered to their homes"? Actually, this whole sentence is simply redundant in this paragraph. I also find the quote "seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm" misleading as it overlooks the mental and physical health harms referred to in the opening sentence of the declaration.Tsabarn (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. The opening sentence of the declaration says they are concerned with harms caused by lockdowns; the article says that they want to minimize harms. Are you maybe assuming that "societal harms" doesn't include the health of the society? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The main point is that declaration is a one-page recommendation for a policy. The policy is roundly criticized by experts, but the document's failure to mention masks etc. isn't the flaw. The policy could well involve promoting masks and physical distancing etc., or not. That is an implementation concern, a level of detail not worked out in the document.

I agree that this language in the lede serves only to cast aspersions on the document and its authors. It does not enlighten the reader as to the documents's contents or its flaws. – M.boli (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Well said.Tsabarn (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Article miscategorised

I'd like to know the justification for placing this article in the following sections: Right-wing politics in the United States; Libertarianism in the United States. I'm sure that there are lots of right-wingers and libertarians who agree with its conclusions, for obvious reasons, but the aforesaid categorisations wrongly label the document itself as being motivated by such an ideology. Ms Gupta herself, its chief contributor, has repeatedly disavowed any such motivations, and has convincingly discussed her history of supporting progressive causes. Even on a charitable view, it's clear to me that the article was placed in those categories to discredit its conclusions, rather than to provide useful information. This sort of practise, worryingly widespread, brings Wikipedia as a platform into disrepute. The said labels should be removed. Daedalus 96 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And your source for this is the Daily Mail? Of course those Faragists have it in for reality, so I wouldn't mind the drivel they print. If Gupta et al. were so keen not to associate themselves with Big Money they wouldn't have confected this risible right-wing anti-science trumpery and wouldn't have held their little press event at one of the main conservative Republican Party lobby groups. Gupta's own politics are irrelevant, and if what she's been doing conflicts with her established views that's only her issue. It doesn't change the contents, purpose, or intent of the Declaration. GPinkerton (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You've still not shown how the declaration is in any way motivated by rightist politics. You've just stated your personal opinion and used more of the guilt-by-association that characterises the article. Ms Gupta's opinions absolutely do matter, and contrary to your suggestion re alleged "Big Money", I quote the following, which on a charitable view you may or may not have actually read:

″It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration.

″Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.″

Again, unless evidence can be presented to justify the view that the purpose of the GBD is to push an agenda, the categorisations should be removed.

Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, they do not matter because, since they are reported by the Daily Mail, they have no credibility in an encyclopaedia. The Declaration is nothing but an agenda; it literally makes recommendations to whoever will read, to be endorsed by anyone that cares to sign. What else would its purpose be? GPinkerton (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Daily Mail is a rotten rag, but the passage to which I was referring was merely quoting Gupta's statements about her political beliefs. Are you suggesting the DM wilfully misquoted her on this particular issue? If not, then its poor journalistic standards are irrelevant. Again, I quote:

"Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail."

It should also be pointed out that her recommendations are based on her own world-class expertise in the field of epidemiology, likely to exceed that of anybody responsible for the content on the wiki page here, which absurdly caricatures her as a loony right-wing conspiracy theorist à la Alex Jones.

I remember doing some research a few years back that required me to go through some old encyclopedias from the Soviet Union. This article rather reminded me of the kind of thing I encountered when reading the articles that touched on the regime's various hobby-horses. Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No matter what Gupta's credentials, the views expressed in the GBD are WP:FRINGE. Or at least, that's the consensus of the reliable sources on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, " I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail". But on this point, she is "aligned", and quoted in that rag alone, and therefore uncitable, and for all we know, completely fabricated. The paper can do it before, why not again? Newspaper sales have gone through the floor during lockdown, what with no commuters and all ... GPinkerton (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Every response to my initial message so far has completely missed the point, which is not that what the article says is wrong scientifically, but that it's biased and riddled with ad hominems and guilt-by-association tactics. If I were a scientist, and and had evidence that a theory being propounded by a fellow scientist were wrong, I would present that evidence. I would not conclude that his theories were wrong because he once bought a pack of nuts in a pub for someone who later turned out to be a white supremacist. Daedalus 96 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed because you confuse the GBD with Gupta. This article is about GBD, not about Gupta. The GBD involves several people. You picked one of them who is not a libertarian and not a climate change denier, and you conclude that because some categories do not fit this person, they do not fit the GBD. You are wrong.

If what the article says is not wrong scientifically, then you can see that those reliable sources which contradict it have done their homework, they did "present that evidence". There is nothing wrong with adding the motive why some of the people are spreading false science. That one of them had a different motive is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the article smears Ms Gupta, whom I admire as an exceptionally brave and principled lady, but the point about guilt by association and irrelevant nonsense about politics applies to the theory as much as to those who originated it.

There is absolutely something wrong with adding information about an alleged motive, because it's baseless insinuation, unless evidence can be presented that backs it up.

Also, I'm not only saying that Ms Gupta herself isn't a libertarian or climate revisionist, but that none of its contributors are. I only point to Gupta in particular, because she's its de facto figurehead. But I'll repeat once more that the political convictions of its authors are irrelevant; even if each one of the GBD's authors were a card-carrying rightist, I still wouldn't consider it as invalidating their conclusions, unless evidence could be presented that those conclusions were the result of politics, rather than politics being incidental to them. It's no secret that most of the advocates of the authoritarian response to COVID-19, even those in the scientific community, have been on the left of the spectrum, often shockingly far to the left, and yet this - rightly - isn't considered relevant. Daedalus 96 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, Jay Bhattacharya is a card-carrying rightist and awfully pally with Scott Atlas and the right-wing lobby group at Stanford that employs Bhattacharya and is paid for by ... Koch and his friends again. Lovely how they all come from the same stable and confect their great proclamation a though they were an organic global movement of concerned citizens rather than a political stunt organized for the Republican Party and their donors. GPinkerton (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you're saying is no better than the things one hears about Bill Gates and 5G, in relation to the virus. Cui bono does not alone establish guilt, and it's irresponsible for an encyclopedia to disingenuously insinuate that it does. This is the crux of my point, and has been repeatedly ignored in this section. Daedalus 96 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, the encyclopaedia follows what reliable sources say. Reliable sources make this connection; we only repeat the facts as reported. GPinkerton (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes little difference when a "reliable" source is defined transcendentally as one which is less than sympathetic to the GBD. Science is not decided by what one favours politically, but by objective facts. It's obvious that although COVID-19 poses a threat to human life, it also poses a threat in terms of mental health, suicide, the economy, and non-COVID deaths. That any scientists who argues that the former should be weighed against the latter is subject to the kind of abuse and lynch-mob tactics that the authors of GBD have been subjected to, including here, shames the contemporary scientific community. They'd have done the same to Galileo, given the chance. Daedalus 96 (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus 96, amusing that you complain about "guilt by association" and then go and repeat the fallacy you have claimed to identify with a textbook Galileo gambit! GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My reference to Galileo wasn't motivated by a belief that the GBD is right - although I do in fact hold such a belief - but by the fact that instead of refuting the arguments of Gupta et al, the strategy has been to subject the authors to abuse and intimidation. Every time I make this point, someone changes the subject, so I guess as suggested below, and through no fault of my own, we really are finished here. Daedalus 96 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

through no fault of my own my ass. It was never "instead of refuting", it was "in addition to refuting". You have been pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-ing the whole time, demanding that we should ignore the motives of the people spreading misinformation, then that they don't even have those motives, you have quoted abysmally bad sources, played the martyr card although nobody has been "shown the instruments", and you have tried to pull the other one, the third one and the fourth one. Reliable sources decide for us what the matter is. Second-guessing them is not our job. That is the reason why you were getting nowhere: you tried to do WP:OR. Nobody "changed the subject", you were trying to impose an irrelevant subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I won't dignify your lavatory language and insulting accusations with a response. Daedalus 96 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source, in Wikipedia, is defined as a source that can be relied upon. Which sources are reliable and which are not is discussed and defined on WP:RSP. If you doubt the reliability of a source, you can go there. But if you want to succeed there, you will need much, much, much, much better reasoning than "it is less than sympathetic to the GBD". I think we are finished here, since your reasoning has reached the bottom of the barrel just now with the Galileo gambit and the equation "rejection of bad ideas = lynching". Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You are a liar. I am not right that the article smears Ms Gupta because I did not say that. Neither do I even think it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Daedalus 96. Welcome to Wikipedia. This isn't always obvious, and we do a poor job of explaining things to newer editors like yourself – that's definitely our fault, not yours – but categories aren't really meant to define the subject or to represent specific, indisputable factual claims about the subject. It happens to work out that way in many cases, but that's not the main point. Instead, categories are sort of a "See also" system. They exist for the purpose of navigation.

As a result, the question of what motivated the declaration, any individual involved in it, etc., is kind of irrelevant. The real question is: If you were a reader who was interested in a subject such as "Libertarianism in the United States", then do editors believe you would be interested in reading about this subject? If so, then the article belongs in Category:Libertarianism in the United States. If not, then it doesn't.

This means that a valid argument for removing it sounds a lot more like "Personally, I just don't think that any reader who is interested in the state of US libertarianism is going to care about this subject" than anything that's been mentioned (by anyone) in this discussion so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References