The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement written and originally signed by 3 top professionals from highly respected institutions (now signed by some 1000's of medical professionals globally, and an unknown number of fake signatures as well) outlining an alternative approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The declaration essentially argues that the lockdowns imposed cause greater harm than a lesser-mitigated covid pandemic ever could. Many outlets claim it is "unscientific", yet I've seen no evidence to verify this claim. It doesn't seem to make any false statements I can find, and at least some I can independently find data to confirm. Or is the claim simply they don't cite their research? (edit, they cite a good amount of research in their FAQ, but I do question whether that alone answers the question fully)
Some specific claims to challenge if the entirety of the declaration is too broad:
We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As far as I know, CDC data supports this claim fully.
A second specific claim:
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.
This would generally reference the entire history of virology as a science; maybe someone can provide something specific to determine the validity of this statement one way or another?
And a third:
The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.
I've seen data to confirm this assertion that I cannot find this afternoon (but will add later if possible), but nothing to deny it to date.
Is there any hard evidence that any one of the three statements above, or the declaration as a whole is unscientific and/or untrue? I know the phrase "unscientific" may be a sticking point, so maybe a better phrasing is, does the declaration make false statements? Given science is the unbiased pursuit of truth through the scientific method I hope we can understand them similarly in reviewing this question. Or please frame challenge that assumption for me.
This LA Times editorial went so far as to name it a hoax, before updating the title.
Not asking if it is unethical, I think that is far outside the scope of this QA, and strictly opinion based; with myriad ethical dilemma presented by either option.
This is my first question in this exchange, I tried to follow the guidelines but am very open to changes and editing if the question doesn't fall within the community guidelines - please communicate :)
EDIT: Some comments have made me think more about this, I think a simplified version of the question is simply: from a factual perspective is the Great Barrington Declaration a valid option worth considering as a method for managing Covid-19, or is it baseless and "unscientific" as claimed by several main stream media sources?