> Plus, wouldn’t a reasonable critique not matter who wrote it?

Of course, but one problem with scientific critiques like this is that they are written towards laymen (this is on Twitter) who probably don’t have the understanding of whether a critique is reasonable or not. So the identity of the person who is performing the critique does have value in that context. In a true peer review scenario it shouldn’t be that way, scientific critiques should be evaluated on their merits alone.

The declaration is only a few paragraphs long and most of it is filler. The meat of the plan is let covid rip through the population, anything else misrepresents the goal of herd immunity. You can't build up natural immunity without transmission.

The biggest flaw with this plan was that you can get infected with the now large family of viruses grouped into "covid" more than once. People don't actually build up as much immunity as the declaration presumes. The second biggest flaw was that there is zero chance you could protect only the high-risk populations.

In the US the plan ended up being basically this but s/virus/vaccine/ because the vaccine gave stronger guarantees on avoiding transmission to high-risk groups but then that got weirdly political for some reason. If it was smallpox I bet those same people would have been breaking down the door for an "experimental" vaccine.

Critiques of Regime Thought come from non-approved sources.