Lockdown Debate Was Skewed Because Skeptical Scientists Had Less ‘Twitter Firepower’: Study

Social media influence helped shape the narrative that shielding the vulnerable while allowing natural immunity to build up was unethical, data expert says

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration at the American Institute for Economic Research, (L–R) Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya, in October 2020. (Taleed Brown/[CC BY 4.0 (ept.ms/2htXG3C)])

Scientists opposed to COVID-19 lockdowns were viewed as “fringe” partly because those calling for draconian restrictions had more social media influence, a study has shown.

John Ioannidis, a Stanford University professor and expert in medical data science, analyzed the expertise of scientists that signed either the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) or the John Snow Memorandum.