Thread by @SGriffin_Lab

So, yesterday @chrischirp and @Zubhaque hosted a brilliant @IndependentSage briefing on lived experience of a group of University students during restrictions.
Some were surprised at the content, especially that negative impacts from restrictions were discussed...
Certain folks

https://twitter.com/SGriffin_Lab/status/1552041514855006209

seem to actually BLAME us for restrictions!
Seemingly, we convinced the virus to return, and it was nothing to do with any missteps in policy, certain folks being invited to no10, or anyone seemingly more motivated by monet over public health...

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1662153537948614661?t=Cchvt5akMXCEeXCDoKbtNA&s=19

So, it may surprise some to hear that agreeing something is necessary for the greater good is NOT the same as "wanting it". We have had multiple discussions of vulnerable groups, inequalities, inequity etc., we have families, including clinically vulnerable ones. We have kids, we

actively want them in SAFE schools, we didn't "want" to be made unwell, in some cases for the longer term...ultimately, we didn't want SARS2, or restrictions ro happen any more than anyone else...
BUT, there's a lot of revisionism going on at present, hence my annual retweet of

this thread. Of course restrictions adversely affected those least able to cope. The pandemic effectively shone spotlights on the fragility and inequity in society.
Nevertheless, what might have happened had we done what many people now seem to think is wise, ie nothing?
Well,

remember 20K deaths being touted as a "good outcome" from modelling? We're now exceeding this annually even WITH vaccines, and with a total 11x this estimate...nevermind the knock on fx, long COVID, latent sequelae...
I've mentioned the pendulum of restrictions vs freedom before,

it seems crazy that a middle ground employing knowledge, vaccines and tech seems now to be unreasonable. How can we call this approach successful, with the pendulum stuck well and truly in the freedom swing? Both extremes carry harm, social damage, kids out of school, economics,

vs infections and harm at rates and frequency well above any other respiratory virus. Folks say, rightly, that there are other health problems, of course there are, so why add another problem when the solution would actually help reduce the impact of multiple healthcare issues?

We have supported #VaccinesPlus for years now, and I've yet to see an argument that negates it. This doesn't mean restrictions, it means protections, plus it should be applied to more than just COVID.
The longer term benefits of clean air, widespread vaccination, surveillance

and support for those who are unwell is an investment in long term public health, a safety net that will be most beneficial to those who face additional, often unnecessary barriers. This is the responsibility of government and public health leaders...so the abject abandonment of

our vaccines feels all the more damaging...
So, apologies for the rant/meander, but it riles me on a daily basis when certain folks who should know better, frankly, make absurd claims that @IndependentSage have either some biased agenda or a political need to see societal

restrictions...we (in MY opinion) have always acted on our best interpretation of data, and on behalf of those we feel have fared worst. We intimately understand the need to return to normal, but my view is that this can be better achieved with a new approach at the national or

indeed international level...in the same way now that we take sanitation for granted, our childhood vaccines, our low neonatal death rates, we can make another stride forwards. Those accusing us of stuff well beyond our control would do well to remember this, which isn't opinion,

it's historic fact. Look beyond individual perspectives, consider population risks, understand that healthy = productivity, and stop polarising stuff that simply isn't...we can accept that this pandemic has cost us dear, we owe it to those who have suffered to learn, not ignore.