Thread by @drraghibali

@dgurdasani1
Do you really think that someone who has spent their career trying to save lives & put their own life at risk by volunteering to work, unpaid, to save the lives of Covid patients is now trying to justify policies that lead to mass infection, disability & death?

1/

https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1451520156983828483

Although it’s tempting to respond in kind, I prefer to assume those who disagree with me are acting in good faith and also want to reduce death and suffering even if- based on my interpretation of the evidence- I believe their policy recommendations are wrong or even harmful.

2/

Of course we may differ on how to achieve that aim, as do other scientists/doctors, and differences are inevitable given the uncertainty of the evidence.
But I would hope that all of us would respect that all are sincere in their intentions.

3/

Also, I assume you not have seen anything else I have said or written throughout the pandemic (which is on my blog drraghibali.net) because, if you had, you would see that the idea that I was justifying policies that cause harm could not be further from the truth.

4/

My primary aim has always been to minimise overall health/societal harm – due to COVID but also from the response to it as restrictions and lockdowns have health harms too which need to be weighed against their benefits - as is the case for any health /medical intervention

5/

I have tried to do that through my clinical service, work on the vaccine campaign, govt. advisor role (all unpaid) and contributing to the public debate by giving my views on how to achieve that.
And sometimes that meant supporting govt. policies & other times opposing them
6/

and also challenging the false assumptions and myths of the Covid/lockdown/vaccine sceptics.
You would also know that I backed restrictions/ lockdowns in previous waves, including the delay to step 4, as it was clear that they would help achieve a reduction in overall harm.

7/

I put this thread out to encourage people to think critically & question the evidence/assumptions that inform their policy recommendations based not just on what should happen - but what actually happened - & whether those policies will therefore lead to the desired result.

8/

And as scientists we should welcome debate, discussion and constructive criticism – that’s how science progresses.
And that's why I'm happy to retweet your rebuttal and let the public & policymakers make up their own minds based on the evidence.

9/

Re. the specific points you raise, I'm happy to discuss them with you but for now I'd ask you to think about a few questions:

1. Why did so many countries that implemented early lockdowns & had small 1st waves then have much worse 2nd waves & higher overall death rates?

10/

2. Why did Wales have the same death rate as England in the 2nd wave despite having the circuit breaker lockdown?

3. Why did cases and hospital admissions fall in July and September despite there being no restrictions, and against the predictions of so many scientists?

11/

4. And finally – and of most relevance currently - what is the evidence that bringing back restrictions now will result in lower overall health harm in the long term?

12