The initiative known as The Great Barrington Declaration, signed on Oct. 4 and led by professor Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., of Harvard Medical School, focused on investigating the negative impact of closures implemented by the CCP Virus (COVID-19), today brings together nearly 700,000 signatures from physicians, academics, and citizens around the world.

Among the measures promoted by most governments around the world during the pandemic are lockdowns at the regional and national level and today there is talk of a new wave with a potential impact in Europe and the United States.

According to Just the News, a statement released last month that sought to study the “damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” managed to get thousands of signatures from experts who believe the lockdowns are causing “irreparable damage.”

According to the document written by three leading experts in the fields of biostatistics, immunology, and public health policy, “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on public health in the short and long term.”

“The results (…) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden,” he added.

For the signatories of the declaration, the ideal policy for managing the virus outbreak should be one that allows those at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally, establishing an approach of immunity to the virus for a segment of the population, which contributes to the protection of those who are most vulnerable to infection.

Herd immunity is the approach adopted by Sweden, where guidance from the country’s leading epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, provides public health guidelines that allow risk measures to be established without locking people up.

The strategy then focused on allowing the virus to run its course until a good number of healthy and immune people manage to stop the spread to more vulnerable populations.

Although so far there is no uniform infection rate that defines how many people should contract the virus, an analysis published in the journal Nature Reviews Immunology established that the threshold is between 50 and 67% of the population.

Speaking to Just The News, Boris Kotchoubey, professor of medical psychology at Tubingen University, in Germany, said, “Anti-Corona measures in all countries that I know (mostly, West Europe) are non-directed, imprecise and, therefore, yield more damage than the disease itself.”

“Actually, we know more or less where the infection is spread,” he continued. “(1) big events like high level sport events, rock concerts etc.; (2) loud parties; (3) activities in closed rooms, particularly with screams or songs (worship); (4) public transportation, particularly in big cities; (5) last but not least invasion of the infection in retirement homes.”

Kotchoubey added that efficient measures to be implemented should be designed for such contexts.

“For example, the German  government forbids theaters and restaurants, although there is not the slightest evidence that anybody has been infected in such places, because all of them had highly developed sanitary concepts (e.g., since May all seats in theaters are at least 2 meters (6 feet) from each other; etc.; the same in restaurants),” he added.

Another signatory, Rodney Sturdivant, director of the Center for Statistical Consulting at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, said the epidemiological research “does not reflect what has been reported and cited as justifying many policy decisions.”

In addition to the statement, several officials have warned of the adverse effects of closures as a result of the CCP Virus pandemic. 

A senior World Health Organization official in October said that strict closures as a measure to deal with the pandemic “should be avoided.”