I'm going to say this because I think I've earned the right, not because I have any of the answers.

It's a rant about covid-19 restrictions and decision making.

It has been eating me up. You might not like what I have to say, but I have to get it off my chest.

My granddad died last week.

He was strong, only retired from a gardening job at 85. He turned 95 in September and had been in and out of hospital for the past couple of years with infections and an untreated cancer. He caught covid in hospital. I haven't seen him since 2019.

My wife's grandmother died on Sunday.

She was in her late 80s and had been in a home for the past 7 years where she's been slowly degenerating since her husband died in 2014. She didn't have covid. No one in the family has visited her for 9 months.

A close family friend died in March.

She was 95 and had had a fall in November that put her in a wheelchair. It meant she had to move into a home where she couldn't get to church or her social clubs. She got lonely very quickly and decided to check out on her own terms.

My dad is 78.

When mum came back from the covid ward where she was the only family member allowed to be with Tom Snr, she was advised to isolate from her husband. He would much rather take the risk that let his wife be bereaved alone.

My wife's team at work has shrunk from eight to two.

Two were temps due to become perm in April. Two were made redundant. Two have been furloughed since march and found new jobs.

Four under 25s lost their livelihood. The marketing team is decimated when it will be needed most.

The politicians keep saying "save lives, follow the science".

This demonstrates a complete lack of leadership and scapegoats the experts.

Science presents the facts. It doesn't give the ethical framework against which decisions about risk to lives and livelihoods are taken.

In March, I thought "This is really interesting. We've decided as a nation that protecting our vulnerable is the most important thing we can do".

But now I see the pandemic creating a whole new category of vulnerable people.

Personally, I am following the guidelines (Tier 3 in sunny Bristol), but getting increasingly frustrated by the whole thing. Not because I don't believe we should try and stem the virus, but because I also see the devastating impacts on local businesses and jobs.

How do we decide whether protect over 90s at the cost of a young family whose small business at the heart of the community going up in smoke? Or a 40 year old cancer survivor against a 22 year old graduate with no prospects?

They're all extremely vulnerable in the pandemic.

"Save lives" alone is not a good enough argument for me.

At its worse, it's a rhetoric that is almost impossible to counter-argue.

Death count is not the only measure of good governance. Governments take life and death trade-off decisions every day.

Tom Snr would have died anyway. Covid didn't kill him, but he's in the death count.

We keep reminding ourselves how much Mrs C would have hated living through this. We don't blame her for checking out when she did.

The result of only having a "save lives" lobby is inconsistent and incoherent policies.

Cultural institutions that give us reason for living beyond basic survival and can enforce safe measures are at threat of extinction.

Suicides are up 100%

50,000 cancers are undiagnosed

Whereas, big-business supermarkets, outlet stores and Amazon are making bigger revenues than ever and taking precious little responsibility for public or employee safety.

Autonomy and agency are such an important aspect of personal motivation, which the pandemic has required us to sacrifice.

I would be much more supportive of the government's wobbling policies if they were telling me how they are better for the country as a whole.

65,000 people have died with (not of) covid-19.

370,000 people lost their jobs in the three months to October alone.

Where are the ethicists? Who is setting the decision-making framework?

The response from the medical communities has been heroic. They deserve our unending gratitude.

Of course doctors are calling for more restrictions. It is a vocational requirement to avoid unnecessary deaths.

If hospitals are full what do we do with the sick?

I am absolutely not calling for an end to all restrictions, nor am I asking for more. I'm not qualified.

I do ask that we recognise that that this is a wickedly complex systems problem and it should be handled as such.

We need more data to be published.

We need more open dialogue about our values and what we hold important.

We need to explore the trade-offs between living, prolonging life and leaving a legacy.

We need to see the nuance behind draconian policy.

On the whole, everyone I know supported the Government's knee-jerk reactions in the spring. We didn't know enough so had to take affirmative action.

Now we've had time to better understand the virus, we expect more considered and justified measures.

Even after covid-19, pandemic will continue to be one of the biggest threats to humanity. Next time it could be slower and harder, or it could be weaker but faster.

Philosophers, politicians, economists and scientists need to get ready with a better, consensus-led approach.

It means holding lots of conflicting ideas in tension, but that's what governments do all the time.

When it affects many peoples' lives so personally, decision making needs to be transparent.

The media should praise people who challenge, not accuse them of killing granny.

Politicians absolutely should be asking scientists "what do we do?" but only after they've set objectives across mortality, economy, social mobility, healthcare, mental health, education, community and family.