Jump to content

Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Signatories

[edit]

Saltsjöbaden, why should the first few signatories be listed? Is it common in secondary sources to see a sample pulled out? Can we lean solely on a primary source that has a provably inaccurate list of signatories? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a list of signatories is going to open a whole can of worms. What would be the selection criteria to list some and not others? Would we list the ones that have been determined elsewhere to be fake? If we give a number of signatories, would we relate that to the total number of people who could have signed but didn't, as many secondary sources do? It is better to leave it out, especially since that is what WP:NOT would require us to do. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that only focusing on the inaccurate signatories while ignoring the clearly very relevant signatories will cause the article to be biased and not adhere to WP:NPOV guidelines. As it stands right now, without mentioning any notable signatories, the Signatories section is only focused on the criticism part. The Signatories section currently talks about "mongolian throat-singers", but includes no mention of clearly relevant signatories. Examples:
~~~~ Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these 'clearly relevant'? Do the secondary sources call these names out specifically? NPOV means that we follow what the sources do, not that we search for some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant, because they are among the key 43 signatories. And the current article seems to have no issue with mentioning signatories for the opposing declaration (John Snow Memorandum). Why is listing key signatories allowed for JSM, but not for GBD? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Counter_memorandum Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the John Snow section is supported by numerous independent, secondary sources. My point is that on Wikipedia, information is 'relevant' because we find it in secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE: your latest addition, John Ioannidis and his views are already covered in the article (based on what the secondary sources have to say, as it should be). Starting a second section on the same stuff isn't helpful. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that you just reverted tried to add at least some balance to the Signatories section, by referencing a published research article on PubMed. This is again a clear example of NPOV violations on this article, where for some reason only critical items are allowed on the Signatories section. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ioannidis article has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page; feel free to search the archives to find out why we will not use it in this way. Also, lest it go unsaid, we already discuss that very paper in the article, in the last paragraph of the "Counter memorandum" section. Take a look at it and you will see why this is not a reliable source in itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the Wikipedia community has specifically rejected the idea that articles should be 'balanced', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE is a straw man argument in this context. WP:FALSEBALANCE mentions topics like the earth being flat, moon landings being false, etc. In this instance we are dealing with credible, top-cited key signatories from key institutions. WP:FALSEBALANCE does not apply here. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific mainstream is quite clear that 'focused protection' does belong on that list. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what source are you claiming that? Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones cited in the article, as well as ones that can be found in the talk page archives. - MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to be unwilling to link to sources supporting your claim of "focused protection" / GBD being somehow fringe or not a credible scientific topic, I'm happy to provide an opposing source from my end. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10399217/ comparing the outcomes of the Swedish approach against the outcomes of other countries. "... the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks." I can agree that the topic is somewhat controversial (obviously), but I don't see any sources supporting the claim that it's fringe, that there is clear academic consensus against it, or somehow belongs under WP:FALSEBALANCE. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in the article, as I said. You can read them there. The differences between what Sweden did and that the GBD called for have also been discussed extensively, you can find explanation in the talk page archives. Your link here is rather irrelevant - even if it weren't from a questionable publisher like Frontiers Media. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly quite trivial to find enough credible sources in academic journals discussing the topic of focused protection. Example 1; Example 2 ; Example 3 ; Example 4 . The claim that this topic is somehow "fringe" or suitable as a WP:FALSEBALANCE example is false. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is trivial to cherry-pick unreliable articles, just as I could come up with several articles that would explain in detail that the Earth is flat. But that's not going to move the needle here. WP:FALSEBALANCE absolutely does apply here - in fact it applies everywhere on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the examples I provided unreliable? Specifically, what makes Example 4 unreliable? I'm providing a source published in Nature. Whereas the currently live wiki article seems to have no issues using media tabloids as some of its sources. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific reports isn't Nature. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes that source unreliable? Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the journal that published a paper claiming that using a cell phone too much could make you grow a horn on the back of your neck. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten off track, so I'm starting this again from the original topic. Key Signatories should be added to the article. The original declaration has 43 key signatories. Given the notability of the topic, I would find it reasonable to add the list of these signatories in a simple table format to the article. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary sources emphasize this aspect of the topic? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should not be deciding which signatories are "key" or "significant" on the basis of their own original research. Doing so, on a controversial topic, is a violation of OR/SYNTH (and in this case an apparent violation of WP:NPOV as well). Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of Stefan Baral

[edit]

I am Stefan Baral and can say that I did not participate in the development of the GBD as this article suggests. As I have said several times, I was invited to participate in a training for journalists that were reporting on COVID-19. I joined remotely for about 45 minutes (and then had to take my kiddo to soccer class as it was Saturday morning), and shared some perspectives on the use of models during emergencies, the role of serological assays, some core public health principles, and beyond and then dropped off. On Sunday evening, I was shared the text of the GBD but it did not include several elements that I considered crucial. I was told it was too late to edit the document and thus did not sign. Importantly, I shared many of the concerns of the authors of this including the lack of equity applied during the COVID-19 responses, the use of police in public health, and beyond. I have written extensively on all of this. But the article as written is incorrect and should be fixed. Sdbaral (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage, do you still have access to Howard's book? Could you quote the portion that references Baral (presumably on p. 105)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not immediately; it's in a different city to where I am. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of your ridiculous fact check (Howard's book... 🤡) is there somebody to write to at Wikipedia to get lies removed? Sdbaral (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "lie" exactly? If Baral was in the mix with the people originating the document, was given the option (!) to add their name to it as an author, but declined since they had qualms – what are the sources detailing what happened? From a quick look I see the NYT says[2] that

Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, attended part of the Great Barrington, Mass., meeting and said he was sympathetic to the effort.

But Dr. Baral, a Swedish citizen who supports that country’s approach, said he did not sign the declaration because it did not lay out a plan for workplace or housing accommodations for people at risk.

Perhaps this can be used to expand the article? The use of a clown emoji doesn't suggest a dispassionate engagement with what needs to be done. Wikipedia is merelty seeking to reflect what appropriate sources are saying about this. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the interview with the NYT and it is appropriate while the wikipedia page as currently designated is not.
I participated remotely in a meeting that was taking place in Great Barrington, MA for about 45 minutes that had been developed as a training for journalists on public health-related issues. The recording of my involvement is still available online if needed. There had been no mention of a declaration being developed nor did I contribute to its development in any way. I was sent the declaration on the Sunday evening along with many others and offered to be one of the "original signers" but the declaration didn't include mention of many things that I considered important and I didn't agree with some of the premises. So I didn't sign. And thus this article suggesting that I contributed to this declaration is a lie. And while I am used to lies on the internet, I have long been a donor to wikimedia and expected better here. But so it goes.
I laid out reasons for this on twitter:
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1317487377397518336
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1316718877708095488
I also shared this story on twitter:
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1328062103668862980
I also did a few interviews about this including the times piece you linked and also this.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3908
Hopefully this clarifies why this is a distruth as currently written. And yes, the Howard "book" is worthy of clown emoticons--and little else. Sdbaral (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to AIER's own[3] account,

On October 3, 2020, in the living room of the Stone House of the American Institute for Economic Research, top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists gathered to discuss the global emergency created by the unprecedented use of state compulsion in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. The result is The Great Barrington Declaration, which urges a “Focused Protection” strategy.

This film provides an inside look at the two hours of questions and answers in a private forum that takes place the morning prior to the drafting of the document. The participating scientists are:

  • Martin Kulldorff Professor, Medicine, Harvard Medical School
  • Jay Bhattacharya Professor, Medicine, Stanford University
  • Sunetra Gupta Professor, Theoretical Epidemiology, University of Oxford
  • Stefan Baral (remote) Assoc Professor, Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins
So by their account the GBD was "the result" of a meeting which had four named scientists. Of course AIER are not necessarily a reliable source; so is the contention that Baral was "present but not involved" ? Bon courage (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIER is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; they have every incentive of trying to make the GBD seem more supported than it was. Crossroads -talk- 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence temporarily. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There might even be an argument it's undue as it doesn't really tell us anything about the GBD itself. Bon courage (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
It is easy to confirm that I was not there -- as I was introduced as joining virtually and hang up after about 40 minutes (third video in this list as youtube links don't seem to work: https://gbdeclaration.org/video/)
If seen as relevant, it would be factually correct to say that I participated virtually in the above mentioned forum that took place the morning before the three ultimate authors drafted the GBD. That said, this also seems pretty tangential to the GBD since none of my well-established perspectives were included.
By that time, I had already published several peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19 including
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207121/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32493741/
There were about 30 COVID-19 related articles in 2020 that I co-authored and can easily be found on pubmed in case anyone cares.
But indeed, I did not contribute to the writing of the GBD. Sdbaral (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is their refusal to sign relevant? They do not appear to be mentioned as signatories by us. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above and especially on Baral's criticism (not support) of the GBD in this BMJ source, I would oppose restoring this sentence to the article. Crossroads -talk- 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on johnsnowmemo.com

[edit]

The web page johnsnowmemo.com read "This website will soon be updated to act as an information repository, presenting the evidence and reasons why governments must do more to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus".[4] This is relevant to mention because as of today they have not presented said evidence and reasons there. --Bensin (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this mentioned in any secondary sources? This could establish some WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, just seems like an odd factoid. Bon courage (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit contained two changes. You've only explained your opposition to one of them. --Bensin (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that means is the change they don't object to you can make. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what they mean, but there was a bad title change too. Can't respond to what isn't raised! Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two changes were:
  • changing the section heading from ==Counter memorandum== to ==The John Snow Memorandum==, for which no justification has been given by anyone, for preferring either option, and
  • addition of the sentence "The web page johnsnowmemo.com read "This website will soon be updated to act as an information repository, presenting the evidence and reasons why governments must do more to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus".[1]", which at minimum deserves a [non-primary source needed] tag.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include anything about the changes to the johnsnowmemo.com website here, unless secondary sources exist about it that connect it to the Great Barrington Declaration (the topic of this article). Just because whoever owns that domain changed what was there, doesn't mean it's relevant to the GBD. The website has had that "Coming Soon" page for nearly 2 years now, so that "soon" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Crossroads -talk- 17:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "[1]" (archived), johnsnowmemo.com. Retrieved 3 September 2024.

"fringe notion"

[edit]

Really? You editors aren't even trying to hide your bias. Please remove this. Just call it for what it is. 66.177.84.252 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe" is suitable for the intro, although "fringe or pseudoscience" shows up, quoted, later in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is practically possible to hygienially separate, using age and health criteria, the populations of countries into two groups that have no physical contact with each other? That's crazy. You believe that once someone was infected with COVID-19, they cannot be infected again? That hope has been quickly refuted. Both notions are the basis of the GBD. It's as fringe as it gets. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Lots of obvious bias against the signatories in this article. Just to get a quick gist of it, take a look at each of the photos in the article and the captions. Definitely need better neutrality. Not encyclopedic in it's pov, 47.181.82.70 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked them through and it's fine. Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a big note at the top of the page that says something like
It's not completely unreasonable for people to guess that "neutral" means treating everything even-Steven, so the Flat Earthers and the geologists are treated as equally valid, but that's not how we do it, and we could do a better job of educating people about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "mainstream media" should be our gold standard for neutrality. I live in a country where the majority of the media's editorial bias reflects the bias of their owners and currently has a strong right-wing culturally conservative anti-science bias. I get the impression that since Trump mocks the "mainstream media" in the US, that its slant is generally not favourable towards him. My point is either slant is at the mercy of a few press and TV station owners, who tend to be millionaires with agendas. And "mainstream media" includes tabloids like the Daily Mail. -- Colin°Talk 14:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream" as you understand it is not the same as "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense of "you can rely on it, or at least rely on it trying to get it right". For instance, Wikipedia regards the Daily Mail as an unreliable source. Check out WP:RSP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The audience I have in mind is people who might talk about the lamestream media: they think the article is bad because it reflects common views and disagrees with their own views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When different people can read a word in such different meanings, using that word without lengthy explanation is not a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can explain the concept more clearly, without using any of Wikipedia's internal jargon, please do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're using a specific sense of the term "mainstream media" that the people in question also call the "lamestream media", maybe we could use that even if it hurts the prescriptivist in me who insists that it still isn't a real word after three decades. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hob, I know this, though I'm a little perplexed that you think I have my own personal understanding of what "mainstream media" is. The general wiki or dictionary definition is just fine. And reliability isn't the same as unbiased. I just think it a dangerous path to go down suggesting that Wikipedia's biases are in any way aligned with the bias in our reader's mainstream media sources. On many things, they aren't, and I think many people, no matter their politics, would expect an encyclopaedia to be sourced to the writings of people who are qualified experts in a topic, not mainstream media at all.
As WAID later notes, the last sentence was made to target a certain US demographic, and if we have learned anything from elections over the years, telling that demographic that they are wrong and stupid and we are right and clever actually has an unintended effect. I think the notice was ok without the last sentence.
But also I'm not sure the IP thinks "neutral" means treating both sides equally. For nearly everyone, neutral means: "what I think", even with truckloads of evidence to the contrary. One has to work really hard to appreciate differently. -- Colin°Talk 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration&oldid=1259379216"