I read the declaration and do agree with it especially with the high awareness now in the community.

Britain was one of the countries whose policy of spreading the virus and eventually normalizing it meant that the majority of the population would be infected with the virus and that the community would eventually be vaccinated.

At the beginning of the corona-virus, one of the policies to deal with the corona-virus, in other words, in this policy, the government has no control over this issue, and the community itself controls the issue in the long run, which is 20 to 30% for me. The death toll will be high in any community, after which the community will be automatically vaccinated against the virus. Marshall de Gaulle response during the Allied invasion of France to liberate the country states that Google did not accept that 2,000 Frenchmen were killed in Allied bombing every day, and finally agreed to negotiate with thousands of people killed in night bombings. Was the one who harassed the French people during Marshal de Gaulle's presidency because he accepted that thousands of people were killed every day under the bombardment of American and British forces. There was no way to liberate France. There was a Corona story in this policy. This is the order in which the person in charge of this country b They accept 20 to 30% of the losses and finally after these losses, the society will be automatically vaccinated.

I agree with the Great Barrington Declaration regarding the response to COVID-19 especially where it says “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.” The mental health of school going children as well as the parents or full time care takers has to be looked at. The adverse effect is felt more by mothers and women who have to stand in as the 'teacher, cook, nurse etc ' while at the same time remain focused at work or in rebuilding their already stressed out enterprise.

Yes, I fully agree. Not with every detail they said but absolutely with the direction and conclusion. The 'science of masks and science of lockdowns' etc is all true, but it does not fit the current virus danger. This seems to be something lost on most people. Of course isolating everyone is preferable to everyone dying, but that is simply not the case with c19. Some time in the future, with virus as dangerous as lockdown fanatics pretend c19 is, the same people that opposed lockdowns will gladly lock down (and won't have a choice really). Years lockdown for c19 is absurd.

"Elimination of COVID-19 is not a practical objective for Canada until we have a vaccine. While there is hope for a vaccine to be developed soon, we must be realistic about the time it will actually take to develop and evaluate it and then deliver an immunization campaign covering the entire population. We cannot sustain universal control measures indefinitely."

Im quite concerned about the wording here... protective preventive procedures are just important as a vaccine. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." also UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 36, Article 6 (Right to Life), 3 September 2019, CCPR/C/GC/35, available at refworld.org/docid/5e5e75e04.html [accessed 12th October 2020]

YES, I DO. Freedom of people to engage in personal development and explore opportunities are highly censored, or curtailed.

Read the Guardian from last weekend. The declaration is more of a political statement than a scientific one. There are clear links with a libertarian rightwing thinktank who want every kind of regulation removed. Just like climate change, these thinktanks fund and support “scientists” who do not come up with their own research but muddy the waters with opinions and criticising other scientists with the aim of creating confusion in the general public. This destroys faith and trust in science in general. The discourse then becomes “science is just an other opinion”.

The same has been done decades long in denying the link between smoking and cancer. Those tactics are used for climate change and now for covid.

This is the link to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/covid-herd-immunity-funding-bad-science-anti-lockdown?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The text of the Declaration can be read in less than five minutes, so I would encourage people to go to the source and read it directly https://gbdeclaration.org/ , without derivative commentaries on it that have an angle to push. The text itself of the Declaration focuses on the traditional concerns of the political Left: the underdog, the vulnerable, the socially excluded, poverty, increasing inequality. I know from reading other interviews that at least two of the three main authors are open about their Left leanings.

Some of the cheap attempts at discrediting the Declaration and its scientific claims are rebutted here:

https://unherd.com/2020/10/matt-hancock-is-wrong-about-herd-immunity/

See also the FAQ they added:

https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/

I agree with this declaration as it is needed in the current situation.

Yes,I agreed the global world need to readjust