An open letter to the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration

Dear Drs. Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta,

Like you, I have grave concerns about the damaging impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies. To minimize harm, it’s fundamental that we have solid bases upon which to make informed decisions. In such spirit, I wanted to bring to your attention that the Great Barrington Declaration you authored contains, as of today, a few inaccuracies that need correction.

In the fourth paragraph, you wrote, “for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” Yet, over the last year, COVID-19 killed more than twice as many young children as influenza did on average during the previous four years pre-COVID. (COVID killed 117 children aged 1-4 in the US over the July 2021 – June 2022 period, whereas influenza killed an average of 57 children aged 0-4 in the US per year over the period 2015–2019 [2].)

Moreover, in the fifth paragraph, you wrote, “as immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls.” Yet what we’ve seen so far is better described as “as immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all increases.” This is easily proved by the fact that immunity in the population is higher in 2022 than in 2020 (thanks to infections and vaccines), yet cases are higher too. This is because reinfections are frequent, and as the virus spreads, people are disproportionately more likely to get in contact with someone infected and thus catch the virus.

These facts were unknown in 2020 when you wrote the GBD. However, they are known now. As the Declaration is still widely read and influential, it would be appropriate to publish a correction. Given how influential the GBD has been and still is, it shouldn’t contain any misleading content.

Moreover, I would like the following two questions to be answered. The more COVID spreads within the non-vulnerable part of a population, the more likely that a vulnerable person gets in contact with someone infected and contagious. So, what does “focused protection” mean concretely for, e.g., a vulnerable person living with their family, on top of the measures that could be taken even without focusing? And can it reduce their risk enough to compensate for the risk increase due to uncontrolled spread in the non-vulnerable population?

Looking forward to an honest reply and correction,

Luca Dellanna

Sources:

[1]: gis.cdc.gov/GRASP/Fluview/PedFluDeath.html and data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku. For a discussion of the numbers, see pandemic.substack.com/p/how-do-covid-children-deaths-compare. Also, a reminder that COVID’s danger isn’t just represented by death but other long-term outcomes too.