Thread by @SGriffin_Lab

I have been saddened, angered and bewildered by criticism of my amazing colleagues at @IndependentSage of late. It strikes me that certain quarters have painted their own pictures, labelled recent outputs as problematic, whilst ignoring any of the actual substance.
As a fairly

new member, these are my own views and understanding of this group I am now privileged to belong too. I don't speak for others, but I'd like to debunk some myths and lazy accusations, if I may...
1. First and foremost, indie SAGE was, and is NOT set up in opposition to SAGE. It

was established because at the start of the pandemic there was a lack of clarity around SAGE membership, but, more significantly, around access to sessions for certain Govt advisors...which, as I understand it, isn't meant to happen.
Indeed, SAGE and indie SAGE agree on most

topics regarding the pandemic, and most indie SAGE reports, articles etc, are based upon evidence also produced/sanctioned for/by SAGE.
2. The role of the two bodies differs. I've not sat on SAGE, but I have been on other Govt committees, and the brief is always a focused set

of questions/scenarios, assessment of confidence in evidence, and specific recommendations in relation to the brief. This is relayed to ministers who make decisions.
Indie SAGE certainly publish evidenced reports around policy, key issues etc, but the idea is for these to be in

the public domain, serving to both guide policymakers as well as keeping the public informed. Indeed, this is another key function of indie SAGE, public engagement and accountability. Sir David set this up, in part, to pressurise govt to declare and publish SAGE membership and

advice that would influence policy. Note, the lack of transparency was/is nothing to do with SAGE members, it was a system forced upon them by government. The public need for understanding was low priority
2. Indie SAGE were/are NOT pro lockdown, do not want unending mitigations,

and want nothing more than the pandemic to end. That doesn't mean they didn't push for restrictions when the situation demanded it, but to suggest a blanket drive for lockdown is totally misguided and incorrect.
3. Along a similar vein, much is made of the notion that indie SAGE

were pro "zero COVID", and still are. Criticisms around school closures is also rife, remember, June 2020 was pre-vaccine. In summer 2020, transmission was at a very low ebb, approaching 10/100k, which is one criterion for elimination, so little or no community spread, but still

not gone. Any virologist, epidemiologist, or public health doc can tell you that the measures in place during spring 2020 were getting close to this level. However, instead of the final push, we instigated a return en masse to hospitality, led by politicians, not scientists. Also

at around this time schools and childcare returned. Thankfully, this short return wasn't sufficient to begin a summer wave, but the issues around a lack of mitigations in place to protect kids remain today. We also know that schools increase transmission, making kids vaccine

policy all the more bewildering. I don't like hashtags, but since vaccines became available the preferred strategy from indie SAGE has been "vaccines plus". There are papers, look them up.
4. We are routinely branded as being some kind of political campaign group, this is not the

case. Yes, many of us have left-leaning views, but not all. Moreover, whilst we may tweet about political stuff as individuals, indie SAGE comment on policy, not politics. All our reports and briefings are online if folks would like to check. Compare this to certain accounts and

elements of the media branding us as "leftist", or "hardline"...who's being political, exactly?
5. Similarly, some eejits imply we're in receipt of nefarious funding, and that our partnership with the Citizens biases our scientific opinions. First, we do this for free on top of

pretty demanding day jobs, and multiple other roles. We recently crowd funded to maintain our production/AV support from Citizens. C'est tout.
We get on well with the Citizens, we often support much of what they stand for. But, to imply that our scientific expertise is somehow

compromised is, frankly, insulting.
This is especially galling when we are accused by accounts belonging to individuals or pressure groups that have clearly crossed the line of political lobbying. The blatant vested interests of MPs linked to e.g. HART, GBD, U4T, Collateral

Global, BIRD group, Together, Brownstone, AIER etc is there for all to see, especially those from the CRG...(formerly ERG, lots of "research" going on 🤪🙄). @karamballes and @_johnbye post incredible threads on this. All of these organisations have collections of "experts" as

well...but I'd be interested to see stats on the number of complaints/suspensions/bans on Twitter for many of these...of course, this is censorship, not valid policing of social media 🙄.
6. One constant theme is attempts by some to paint a back & white picture where we are "pro

-lockdown, masks forever, restrictions etc, crashing the economy, damaging kids' development, "living in fear"...
Well, for a start, fear doesn't come in to it. Compassion, empathy, addressing inequality, yes. Moreover, restrictions following lockdown 1 have swung like a pendulum

between harsh restrictions and "freedom". This is a nonsense, mainly due to the huge role behaviour plays in transmission. Of course it comes back!
Vax+, clean air, the COVID pledge, pro-vax messaging, supporting those in need, addressing the NHS crisis, basic surveillance and

testing/isolation would all support vaccines and therapies such that we might eventually learn to live properly with COVID, rather than ignoring it, continuing harm, long COVID, and allowing unprecedented viral diversity...all of which may profoundly extend the pandemic.

7. Finally, yes, we want all this to end. We don't crave fame or attention, but we all consider scientific communication to be paramount during a pandemic. Some of us have clinical vulnerability, or family in such positions, but we all recognise the importance of public health at

the population, not the individual level to safeguard the significant minority that are, or have become, most affected by the risks of disease. This is not to the exclusion of other issues, but the thing about pandemics is they tend to affect lots of people!
This is supported by

numbers and expertise - try reading the reports or watching the online briefings, research papers, OpEds, commentaries, etc. Oh, and address the content, not the authors, please! @bmj_latest

In summary, Indie SAGE is a genuinely well motivated group seeking to promote public

understanding of science around the pandemic. Members are motivated to maximise awareness, and hasten rather than hinder the transition from the SARS2 pandemic to an endemic set point that is as low as possible.
In the meantime, I will continue to work with this amazing group.🙏