Science and Social Media PresenceĪ new study authored by Stanford Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis provides support for what was already apparent: The Great Barrington Declaration scientists and supporters are not “fringe.”
Because if they aren’t, John Snow Memorandum supporters have unfairly smeared them, using social media attacks rather than participating in concerted scientific discourse. This narrative allows mainstream media outlets and pro-lockdown politicians to dismiss the focused protection approach espoused by GBD scientists as outside the realm of serious scientific debate.Ī main concern arising from this narrative that is worth considering, though, is whether the Great Barrington Declaration scientists are truly fringe figures.
GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION HOW TO
One such strategy employed by JSM supporters is to portray the Great Barrington Declaration scientists as a “fringe minority” who hold dangerous views on how to mitigate the virus. In contrast, John Snow Memorandum supporters leaned into a different approach, placing greater emphasis on social media, especially Twitter, to attack those who question their preferred means of dealing with pandemics. On one side of the debate, Great Barrington Declaration supporters engaged in responsible scientific commentary by focusing on running studies, academic journals, and measured editorials about their policy ideas. Is the Great Barrington Declaration “Fringe?”
Exchanges between the group’s supporters have been fierce, occurring through warring op-eds, social media, television appearances, books, and academic articles. Following their release, both groups used media appearances and social media to communicate their ideas to the broader public. The John Snow Memorandum was released after the Great Barrington Declaration, and one can reasonably assume its drafting was largely a response to the GBD. Presently, the Great Barrington Declaration lists 925,000 signatories. The focused protection group produced the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), and the pro-restrictions group composed the John Snow Memorandum (JSM). In the fall of 2020, each group distilled its ideas in online statements that allowed others to add their signatures in support, similar to petitions. While there is a range of thought in the pro-suppression, lockdown camp, many promote the controversial “Zero-Covid” approach. The groups can be loosely categorized as either advocating a focused protection approach or “effective measures that suppress and control transmission,” including lockdowns. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the debate over the optimal response to Covid-19 has been mired with scandal, ad hominems, coordinated attacks from the highest levels of government, accusations of conflicts of interest, strawman arguments, censorship, and deception.Īfter the spring 2020 lockdowns, public health scientists split into two camps, each with their own ideas on how best to deal with the pandemic. It effectively flatlined in 2020, and two years later it shows no signs of life. An unspoken casualty of Covid-19 is the civil debate over public health policy.
0 kommentar(er)
