> Many dr/scientist/epidemiologist have oppose the lockdown policy https://gbdeclaration.org/

You've found a fringe group sponsored by an American right-wing think tank, the kind who would sell their grandma for parts if they thought it would increase profits. The letter proposes a ludicrous plan, that all serious epidemiologists [who are not sold out] oppose:

> The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis. They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions, and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood. Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way."

You also bizarrely claim:

> I can't know exactly what is their motivation is or simply failures of policy making. If they really looked at the risk then they wouldn't do lockdown.

When in fact, again, all public health experts agree that lockdowns, masks and social distancing are crucial to avoid an even larger tragedy than today.

> So basically: They don't have any idea but lets just give it a go.

No, they recognize the limits of current knowledge and propose ways to improve it and make sure the decisions are also measured and held to account. But there is no option to just wait - they've actually tried that initially, with disastrous consequences (it's one of the reasons why the UK is one of the worse hit countries). The rest of the document does detail exactly the current knowledge and risk estimates and effectiveness estimates that they've based their decision on.

Perhaps the key phrase is actually here:

> Population vs individual-level impactsSome of the interventions here can have a significant impact on the individuals who are affected, but a relatively minor effect at the population level as they are comparativelyrare. Whilst we have tried to maintain a population-level approach (e.g. evidenced through our use of the population indicatorR) the weaker, anecdotal or theoretical arguments on the evidence for harms is often at the individual-level. Adding up these individual potential harms is more difficult. The model provided by ONS does attempt to do this, though as with all models there are limitations to its scope and accuracy.

Please stop advocating against measures that save hundreds of thousands of lives. Neither you nor I are epidemiological or public health experts, so let's stop pretending we know better than the experts. As citizens of democratic countries, our place is NOT to question experts recommendations and risk estimates - it is only to decide whether we care more about saving human lives or economic health, and I think in most countries, for the majority of people, the answer is clear.