Interview (January 7) with a quite level-headed Portuguese epidemiologist, who also works as a scientific consultant for the government. https://www.publico.pt/2021/01/07/sociedade/noticia/henrique-barros-confinamento-resolve-problema-cria-serie-problemas-1945484

On Christmas:

"What happened during this period at the end of the year was a general increase. It was foreseeable: there was a large number of contacts between households and longer contacts, because a Christmas meal takes longer... People have the right to make their decisions

they wanted to be with each other. But even if the increase in risk was small, because there were many of these meetings, naturally there was a greater possibility of infections occurring. What we are seeing from that point of view is absolutely expected. Now, i

t is neither morally nor ethically acceptable — indeed it is not decent to say this is people's fault. People have to live. What is most dramatic and unacceptable is that we created this idea that the people who decided not to isolate at home are to blame. And they went t

to visit their father, the old uncle or a sick brother or a friend. They did it because they are human beings, and I am sure that the vast majority were concerned with protecting themselves and others".

On Individual responsibility vs restricting measures

People must be responsible. There is a dimension of freedom of decision that we must respect. It is curious to see that, in countries where very strict rules were imposed as to how should people gather

and how many could do so, the rebound was exactly like in the Portuguese case or, in some cases, even worse. Regarding measures, there was nothing else that could have been done. What could those measures be? Preventing people from seeing each other? I do not agree with that".

On Lockdowns and social consequences:

"If we lockdown, the infection decreases, period. No one can disagree with that statement. If everyone goes home, each to their own room, does the infection decrease? Unequivocally. But then there is the social decision and, about that,

don’t ask me. It’s not my job to give opinions. I am a scientist, an epidemiologist, and a doctor. If the question is ‘if we lockdown, does the contagion decrease?’ Yes. And what should we do? Don't ask me. As an expert, I have to say what, in the current state of knowledge,

is known to work. But public health decision making is part science, part art. From the point of view of public health, lockdown solves the problem. From that moment on, the contagion decreases, but a whole series of other problems is created, namely of social nature.

If we lockdown everyone, society comes to a halt. The balance of these things must be done. Portugal never truly had a lockdown. There were people who, due to the nature of their profession and resources, had the possibility of self-isolating. But there were people who had to

take the risk so that everyone else could isolate. And it is this social contrast that we must consider in relation to the contagion. And just as we ask people to continue to work, to continually expose themselves to risk so that we can have a normal life,

we also have to understand those who decide to visit a family member".

I absolutely love the distinction he makes about lockdowns. A scientist can tell you whether or not a given strategy results in reduced death. They are not always qualified to tell you whether

or not we should undertake that strategy.

Epidemiologists are not trained to weigh the social and moral pros and cons of a lockdown. Not their job, not their training.

He's an Epidemiologist with sense and humility. I like that.