Wow. Thanks to everyone who read, retweeted, and commented (including those taking the other side without being nasty). Since I had 4 followers at the time of my first tweet (certainly bots) I hoped 100 people or so might somehow see the thread. As of today (2 days later) it has

apparently been viewed over 1.2 million times.

I genuinely (naively) thought I might be able to have dialogue with all those interested. Fortunately/unfortunately, that has proven unrealistic given the response. Accordingly, I wanted to clarify a few things (if you couldn’t

tell from my original thread, brevity is not my strength, so apologies for another thread):

1.I believe in nuance and balance; Twitter rarely allows for either
2.I am certainly not a COVID denier. It’s a very real and horrible thing that has killed millions of people.

3.Lockdowns, however, also have and will continue to kill millions of people.
4.There are, accordingly, no solutions but only trade-offs. These trade-offs cause us to, subconsciously or otherwise, have to make uncomfortable judgement calls – for example weighing the life of an

elderly person in the US vs a young child in the developing world.
5. In my view (I understand not shared by everyone), in making that call, lockdowns have extremely weak cost/benefit. As an example, one “side effect” of lockdown according to the UN is that 130 million additional

people will starve. If you infected the entire global population of ~8 billion with COVID, the current IFR of 0.3% would result in 24 million deaths. So we have already inflicted a far worse outcome upon our collective selves from just one collateral impact (there are many others

e.g. 1.4 million additional tuberculosis deaths).
6.Lockdowns “save” the rich at the expense of the poor. Be honest with yourself, if you support lockdowns, do you have a steady paycheck that you can earn from home?
7.Somehow we have transitioned to a world where we are

locked down absent clear and convincing evidence that it is “safe” to reopen. This is absolutely backwards—the world was never safe to begin with and it is certainly NOT "safe" to close schools, businesses, or to take away people’s livelihoods.
8.Every job is essential as it

provides a means of sustenance for an individual and her/his family. There is a reason no one has ever tried to pause society before; it is impossible and, even if it could be done, the poor would bear the burden.
9.Many people pointed out that lockdowns would have worked if

people complied; this may be partially true, but the point is people can’t/don’t/won’t and therefore it is bad policy. Good policy should take into consideration the needs of a functioning society (physical and mental health, economic livelihoods, purpose, social connections,

liberty). Unrealistic policy is bad policy. Telling everyone to stop breathing would also end the pandemic.
10. No one should be shamed for becoming infected or for their need/desire for human connection or income.
11. Many people pointed out some of the papers show that NPIs

do work. I agree and am supportive of reasonable VOLUNTARY social distancing measures; people should be educated (rather than subjected to media terrorism) and be empowered to make their own decisions based on their comfort level and risk profile.
12. Early in the pandemic, I

found myself downplaying COVID because of my abhorrence of lockdown. This was a mistake and I encourage others to be thoughtful in this regard.
13.I have mentally compared a lot of our response to COVID as a failure to implement the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule) on many levels,

ie that 80% of your outcomes are attributable to 20% of inputs and therefore it is these 20% where we should focus. We have basically done the opposite:
a. 80% of deaths are in the old/unwell, but we told everyone they were going to die and locked them down

b.80% of transmission comes from symptomatic people, but we locked up the healthy
c.80% of the “benefit” of lockdown can be achieved through voluntary NPIs, but we destroyed all of society instead
d.80% of cases come from private gatherings/households, hospitals, or care homes

but we shut down all businesses.
14. I have become increasingly concerned about the use of mass PCR testing. Even the NYTimes has conceded that 80-90% of positives are effectively meaningless. @michaelmina_lab has a better approach.
15.Indeed I think mass PCR testing has caused

people to understate the possible severity of COVID (due to such high meaningless and/or outright false positives).
16.When you consider that many jurisdictions classify a death as COVID if it is within [x] days of a positive PCR test, this raises tough questions. Never before

have we measured/classified anything in this manner.
17. Some other criticisms addressed:
a. Some people said I cherry-picked quotes. Of course I did, that’s what I said I was going to do. But they are still direct quotes which I had hoped would be less controversial. Should've

known better.
b. Some of the studies showed NPIs work: I completely agree. Voluntary NPIs work and that is, in my view, a large reason why many curves turned down ahead of time.
c. Did I compile 30 studies showing the opposite: no, that’s not my job. Clearly whoever’s job that

was has succeeded given where we are in the world. I wanted to provide an alternative view to our current dystopian reality.
d. Many of the studies are not peer reviewed: I agree. I did not mean to imply that they all were. Nonetheless, they all contribute to my main point that

for lockdowns to even be entertained, they must unequivocally provide enormous benefit. 30 smart studies showing they don’t – reviewed or otherwise- suggest lockdowns do not meet that burden.
e. NZ/Australia/Taiwan– I agree clearly the best national strategy is to turn yourself

into an isolated island nation in the Pacific before the disease can become widespread. In all seriousness, there is something to be learned here, I’m just not sure yet. There is also the enormous question of exit strategy.
f. Many assumed that because I am anti-lockdown I also

must be a right wing lunatic that stormed the US capitol earlier this month. Quite the contrary I am a centrist or, more accurately really, I am disillusioned with both US political parties as they have both effectively devolved into influence-peddling rackets serving differing

constituents. Admittedly, seeing blue state governors (my former party) destroy the lives of those they ostensibly care about has caused me a rightward drift during this pandemic. For those that may be concerned they are in a newsfeed echo chamber, I highly recommend giving

@AllSidesNow a follow. Constructive dialogue amongst those who disagree is good, shouting and insults are not. I strongly believe the civil unrest and polarization of society over the last year is a direct result of the lockdowns which inhibited our ability to have shared and

lived experiences with people of different stripes. Here’s to a better 2021.