I've long been really torn on the in person teaching debate, but one aspect of it that I've been reflecting on over the past week is what I've been thinking of as a kind of balance of restrictions.

What I mean by that is that at any point (and indeed in any tier) national and local governments pick a basket of measures (restrictions) to control the virus. You don't totally close society, you can't have a free for all either, the thing you choose throws up contradictions.

And that mid point you pick doesn't have to be about "herd immunity", mental health and individual freedom does matter, as does economic activity. None absolutes but all matter.

Thing is, even if you choose to not restrict something (ie students moving to uni towns and cities for in person teaching) and even if you do so for good reasons (benefit of doubt to DfE and unis) you're still using up some of the slack.

When you do it, it means you can't do some other things like types of non essential retail, or outdoor education centres, or coach trips or... we could pick loads of stuff.

My point is so many people are suffering (economically and mental health) from restrictions imposed so that HE can operate in the mode that it has this term. All I'm saying is that I worry that some of those harms others are taking weren't worth it for the freedoms we've...

... afforded to students this term. I think on balance I would have picked a different "thing" to exempt. And yes, I know my argument turns in on itself given I committed to taking economic impacts into account. I'm just saying.