It is hard to take McNeil serious when his first substantive points about the Covid response are to mischaracterize and dismiss the positions in the Great Barrington declaration. It was not to just "let the virus rip through the population", although that is essentially what happened anyway. It was, once we understood who was at highest …
It is hard to take McNeil serious when his first substantive points about the Covid response are to mischaracterize and dismiss the positions in the Great Barrington declaration. It was not to just "let the virus rip through the population", although that is essentially what happened anyway. It was, once we understood who was at highest risk, to protect those more rigorously than people not at serious risk from Covid. And they did subsequently provide some recommendations on how to do that, though not in the 1 page statement that was the declaration, but in the FAQs about how the principles might be implemented.
It is hard to take McNeil serious when his first substantive points about the Covid response are to mischaracterize and dismiss the positions in the Great Barrington declaration. It was not to just "let the virus rip through the population", although that is essentially what happened anyway. It was, once we understood who was at highest risk, to protect those more rigorously than people not at serious risk from Covid. And they did subsequently provide some recommendations on how to do that, though not in the 1 page statement that was the declaration, but in the FAQs about how the principles might be implemented.
WE KNEW WHO WAS AT HIGHEST RISK BEFORE THE DISEASE REACHED OUR SHORES.
The Chinese may have lied about a lot of things, but they were honest about who the disease killed from day one.