Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Bhattacharya is a physician and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, and is a critic of pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Summary

Donald Trump has nominated Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford health economist and co-author of the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Bhattacharya, a critic of lockdowns and vaccine mandates, advocated for herd immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic, a stance widely criticized by public health experts.

His nomination, alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS secretary, signals Trump’s intent to overhaul public health agencies.

Critics worry these appointments could undermine trust in public health, while supporters hail them as a challenge to the status quo.

  • jedibob5@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    20 hours ago

    Bhattacharya, a critic of lockdowns and vaccine mandates, advocated for herd immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic

    That’s… not what herd immunity is… right? I was under the impression that herd immunity posits that a high vaccination rate among the general population would protect those who are immunocompromised or otherwise not healthy enough to get vaccines.

    “Advocating for herd immunity” and “critic of vaccine mandates” are two inherently contradictory ideas, unless I’ve been greatly misled…

    • FundMECFSResearchEnglish
      28·
      20 hours ago

      Basically he thinks we should never have had lockdowns and just gotten it overwith.

      Never mind estimates that the lockdown saved a couple million lives.

      He also doesn’t believe in Long COVID, and basically thinks disabled people just need to try harder.

      He’ll be a disaster.

        • FundMECFSResearchEnglish
          9·
          19 hours ago

          He’s literally the author of the great barrington declaration, and all these points are made in that book.

            • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
              14·
              19 hours ago

              I read it, and holy shit it is fucking awful.

              As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

              The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

              Basically, the idea is that spreading an infection while health services was overwhelmed becuase kids didn’t die as much. Guess who suffers when the health care system is overloaded? Everyone!

              The goal of the covid policies was to keep hospitals and medical services from collapsing. They came really close in a lot of areas, and were even overwhelmed in places. Covid was already spreading even with the policies in place because people still ignored a lot of them, so the focused protection would have just made things worse.

              It was a terrible idea.

              • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
                5·
                17 hours ago

                But this economy thing is more important than access to healthcare!

                Maybe we can impose tariffs on the bird flu.