Locking Down or Opening Up? A Debate on COVID-19 hosted by Johns Hopkins University

Locking Down or Opening Up? A debate on the best path through the pandemic, discussing the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration
Friday, October 30 from 1:00PM-2:00PM ET
Click HERE to Register and obtain Zoom link
Stefan Baral, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University School of Medicine
David Dowdy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Colleen F. Hanrahan, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Panel Host: Daniel Polsky, Director of Hopkins Business of Health Initiative
This event is the next installment of the Johns Hopkins Interdisciplinary Zoom Webinar Series, Advancing evidence-based decision making for COVID19
An interdisciplinary forum to advance evidence-based decision making for COVID19 and future pandemics. We welcome researchers from Hopkins and around the country in economics, epidemiology, (bio)statistics, ethics, systems science, and beyond as well as anyone seeking to learn more about emerging models to inform COVID19 decision making.
Organized by: Hopkins Business of Health Initiative

[@dit4963]

Great discussion! This should have been done on a weekly basis since the beginning of the pandemic. As personally, I am sick of the discussion being hijacked by politicians or media and pseudo-science communicators who seem to be more activists, than scientists. Please keep on! Maybe next some more specific topics can be addressed, like IFR and immunity, which I think are crucial for the best approach.

[@user-yq2wk6yg8s]

Thank you for making this video.
I have watched more than a hundred videos and read as many again articles, papers and pre-prints offering different viewpoints since March. This was one of the most balanced discussions I have seen so far. It provides some useful insights.
One point, in particular, which Stefan made concerning Sweden's approach, I found particularly useful. He very briefly mentioned how it is easier for Sweden to steer their response and make small changes to it as new data becomes available, without the disruptions such changes cause when made in places like the UK where we have had legally enforced lockdowns and regulations.
That to me was a new insight of just one more way where my country's government failed us. When the populace are given agency to act for themselves, instead of being treated as though they were all children or sheep, they have more respect for their government and are more likely to act sensibly. This is something all European governments need to hear urgently.
One other point. Regarding care homes and the large proportion of deaths which occurred there in many countries, I think we should ask if it was not almost inevitable that this would happen and what alternatives would have been possible? So should care of the elderly be more dispersed throughout the community in future? Would it have made any difference? How far would that be possible or desirable?

[@petebrown369]

As someone who was partial to the John Snow Memorandum theory, I learned a lot and now have a more moderate belief that while specific lockdowns are necessary, painting everyone with the same brush will have dangerous and long term affects. While the "debate" was not perfect, I do agree that getting people from both sides talking in a civil fashion is impressive and thought provoking. I would very much like to be able to view/participate in any future discussions so that I might be able to ask my own questions and relay that information to my local bubble. The transfer of data wasn't discussed outside the scientific community, but absolutely should in future conversations. Thanks again!

[@NightKnight347]

"I am worried that this will harm public trust for decades, and I'm worried people may not even want to apply to MPH programs anymore..." (paraphrased) This is me. I've been saying this for months. There cannot be health if it is not public. I've been in the health field deep enough to know the internal politics, but watching it spill out for the public to see has been very demoralizing. You are absolutely right Stefan. I am one of those individuals who was deeply interested in public health, and I was very optimistic at the outset of the pandemic. I even spoke about how it presented opportunities to fix certain aspects of society (like heavy infrastructure that is normally used too much to be redesigned) in a bipartisan way. That hope lasted three days until certain bad actors flew into DC and curtailed the bipartisan work that was being worked on (and signed.) I eventually decided that I had no interest in public health if it was going to lose interest in evidenced-based intervention, the principle of Subsidiarity, and become merely a club for electoral campaigns.
Huge thanks to you Stefan for participating and uploading!

[@ehuntley83]

Opening up. Definitely opening up.

[@simeonkwan]

Reasonable people can disagree. That's why this video is great!

[@shaheena.3803]

@@simeonkwan none of them are disagreeing with this. They think the efforts to combat the virus needs to be more dynamic. But if I heard them right they don’t think the lockdown is necessary anymore.

[@stefbaral]

@@shaheena.3803 Thanks! I think the agreements and disagreements were in the specifics of it all. But indeed, I surely do not support restrictions-based non-adaptive mandates as public health practice. But absolutely support empiric supportive interventions including paid leave, housing support, and removing any barriers to testing and health care in general.

[@shaheena.3803]

@@stefbaral it’s mind boggling to me that this isn’t a commonly held view. It’s only common sense and the data backs it. I’m not sure why government officials want to resort to these one size fits all measures that have devastating collateral costs and don’t benefit the majority of the population. You would think with all these reputable MDs and epidemiologists saying lockdowns aren’t necessary anymore that these governors/heads of state would change their strategy. Especially when they claim they “listen” to the science.

[@ashvarma1]

Great discussion. Very informative, insightful and inspiring. Thanks for doing this. Ashok Varma M.D.

[@KittenGotCough]

Maybe it's just where I'm at but when Stefan started talking I just started to weep. Speaking aloud the things I have been so appalled by. I'll wipe my eyes and keep listening....

[@codybrooks763]

Nice work Stefan, I watched this live and was active in the chat. A valuable conversation.

[@tomnicholson5928]

Searched for this by name in TH-cam and still couldn't find it-- took about 10 minutes to find the link on twitter. Absurd.

[@shaheena.3803]

This video isn’t getting more views because their views don’t fit the narrative. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist but tech and internet based corporations have experienced a massive increase in profits as a direct result of the lockdown. Something tells me that they have a vested interest in suppressing these kinds of conversations.

[@XYZ-rk6ok]

John Snow and Great Barrington still operate inside their western echo chamber. The east asian/pacific model for success is left aside. Therefore, this is still group think.

[@adamyoung7999]

Will you elucidate the Asian/pacific model for success?

[@TheAntiMalthusian]

Open up! No more lockdowns!