Prof Jonas @Ludvigsson yesterday posted a response to questions about why he signed the Great Barrington Declaration. I hope he doesn't mind but I've translated it in to English for those interested, followed by some comments. https://twitter.com/ludvigsson/status/1359904634522005504

First, I disagree with Prof Ludvigsson about "lockdowns", however you define them, not being useful unless implemented early. Stricter restrictions have led to significant declines in cases in country after country.

Less cases=less illness=less death. https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1353751778353946626?s=20

He goes on to say he saw the GB declaration from "a global perspective" and was concerned about what lockdowns would do in poor countries.

I find this unconvincing. The declaration itself makes no reference to this. https://gbdeclaration.org/ 

Instead, it refers to the results of lockdowns being things like "worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health"

All very much 1st world problems.

And sorry, but it also strikes me a little as "white man saviour syndrome".

In reality, many poorer countries have handled this pandemic far better than Europe, and especially Sweden. Most have excellent public health response systems, having far more experience dealing with epidemics. Here's Sweden compared to the countries he mentions.

Even on Oct 4, when the declaration was signed, all those countries, bar Bolivia, were doing much better than Sweden.

Ludvigsson goes on to cite UNICEF estimates that the pandemic will push 142 million children in to poverty. https://data.unicef.org/resources/children-in-monetary-poor-households-and-covid-19/

It's two pages plus some footnotes, and is merely a range of estimates on the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic as a whole, based on many assumptions. There is no "will" about it, and no mention of lockdowns. Ludvigsson also chose the most pessimistic of their projections.

He goes on to cite another UNICEF estimate - that 436 million children missed out on education because of lockdowns and an inability to use remote learning. https://data.unicef.org/resources/remote-learning-reachability-factsheet/

This report, again, is estimates. Estimates I think that are wildly overstated, but nevertheless it does raise serious points about school closures that need addressing.

Ludvigsson started his note by saying he doesn't see things as "black or white" but in fact that's exactly what he is doing here. It's "school closed" or "school open".

"Close schools except for those who need the support" or "close schools and provide additional support for those who need it at home" or "keep schools open but have rolling timetables to limit crowding" etc etc are not considered.

Nobody, anywhere, wants to just close schools.

Prof Ludvigsson goes on to claim "even in a country like Sweden ... a total lockdown would have severe consequences" - but he provides no description or evidence of such consequences, or even a description of what "a total lockdown" means.

We are more than a year in to this pandemic, and GBD supporters are constantly telling me about the "catastrophic" and "severe" and "devastating" effects of lockdown, clearly all worse than the pandemic itself.

So Prof @ludvigsson, I ask for the evidence.

When challenged, no GBD supporter has able to actually show any to me. There should be hard data by now. Where is it? On direct comparison, Norway would have had an additional ca 5000 deaths if it had followed the Swedish strategy, and tens of thousands more seriously ill.

Show me the data that Norway's lockdowns have had effects "more severe" than this.

Show me the "devastating consequences" in Australia, and New Zealand.

I looked at the data on B.117 and I changed my mind.

Show me the data on lockdowns. Change my mind.