Thread by @drraghibali

To those calling for a return to restrictions, a reminder of some criteria I set out last year that should be used before suppression measures are implemented:

i) Evidence for effectiveness in reducing cases
(particularly in over 60s) hospital admissions & deaths

(1/4)

ii) Evidence that a mandatory approach produces better outcomes than a voluntary one.

iii) Evidence that a blanket approach produces better outcomes than a targeted one. e.g. on adherence, suppression

(2/4)

iv) Evidence for broad public acceptability with high levels of sustainable adherence.

v) Most importantly, that the intervention has been shown through transparent impact-benefit analysis to produce less overall harm. (Health in QALYS, cost per QALY saved.)

(3/4)

vi) And where harms are certain but benefits uncertain, the intervention should not be used

The burden of proof is on those who are calling for restrictions to show that they meet these criteria and will actually reduce overall harm - which is what we should all want.

(4/4)