Thread by @RufusSG, I find this argument deeply unsettling for a number of reasons: I [...]

I find this argument deeply unsettling for a number of reasons: I spent most of yesterday pushing back against it because those making it refuse to engage with the logical implications.

I’m going try and flesh out why I think this way in more detail.

/1 https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1388258404678914049">https://twitter.com/chrischir...

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1388258404678914049

My core argument is the following: the logic of it being immoral to unknowingly facilitate *any* transmission of COVID-19 could be applied to every single infectious disease going, and we might as well never leave the house again.

Is it entirely that simple? Well, not quite.

/2

This depends largely on your view of autonomy, whether we have a responsibility to prevent others catching viruses at all costs, and if failing to do so denies that autonomy.

Is our behaviour dictated by this imperative? Yes, clearly - we don& #39;t go around coughing on people.

/3

But there are clearly trade-offs. Generally, we accept that getting into close contact with others may put us at risk of catching viruses: we usually accept that risk because, hey, close contact is quite nice and we& #39;re unlikely to fall seriously ill from virus x in question.

/4

We also fulfil this obligation to protect each other at the macro level, by developing therapeutics and vaccines or funding properly funding healthcare systems to help sick people get better. In general, this dynamic ticks along nicely and balances our competing needs.

/5

This is how we approach most viruses. Yet Indie SAGE argue that COVID-19 is a disease so dangerous, so far beyond anything we& #39;ve experienced that even unknowingly passing on a single case is morally akin to manslaughter. It requires a new moral framework.

Is this right?

/6

COVID-19 is, of course, a terrible disease, having killed at least 120k people in the UK and left huge numbers with chronic health conditions. Its impact has been devastating. It& #39;s worse than flu on any metric, and in March 2020, yes, it deserved different treatment.

/7

Would I have supported this event back then, or this January, when community transmission was rampant? Probably not.

But (despite how resolutely Indie SAGE ignore it) the picture has changed: we now have incredible tools to fight the virus: vaccines, treatments, the works.

/8

Over 50% of the UK has now received a vaccine dose, with 21% having had a second. Cases in Liverpool, the trial location, are on the floor.

So does this event act against the interests of the wider community? No, no and no again: the risk balance has completely changed.

/9

Even if we ignore the trial details - every participant was tested beforehand, and will be tested twice more in the days after - what are the odds of someone having the virus and spreading it to a vulnerable member of the community who ends up in hospital?

Absolutely tiny.

/10

Yet in the world of Indie SAGE, because COVID-19 requires this new moral framework, only zero will do. Zero is the only morally acceptable goal, and there is no environment short of total elimination in which we should focus on anything other than spreading the virus.

/11

As many have highlighted to me whilst I write this, there is a remarkably puritanical streak to this view. Since stopping COVID-19 spread is our sole moral imperative, anything which visibly isn& #39;t trying to achieve that (e.g. humans having fun at close contact!) becomes bad.

/12

We see this in the relentless use of shame, often towards young people, to force compliance. There& #39;s no sensitive risk comms to help people make informed choices, as sexual health experts encourage: just shame, shame, shame.

It didn& #39;t work for HIV. It doesn& #39;t work here.

/13

It is overly simplistic and childish to say Indie SAGE simply hate fun full stop, but when their members seem to think humans being denied their basic needs has no problems whatsoever, you have to wonder:

https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1386275519923204096

/14">https://twitter.com/globalhlt...

https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1386275519923204096

Clearly Indie SAGE prefer the shame model because, again, they think COVID-19 is such an existential threat that nothing but constant vigilance is the appropriate response.

But, again, the game has changed: in a post-vaccine world, COVID-19 has become seriously defanged.

/15

We& #39;re beating this bloody virus. We& #39;re going to win. Just because you can& #39;t tolerate *any* risk, *any* cases whatsoever of COVID-19 in the future, doesn& #39;t mean the rest of us can& #39;t. This doesn& #39;t mean not monitoring it: it just means the trade-offs are now easier.

/16

As such, COVID-19 will no longer cross the arbitrary line where it& #39;s morally necessary to alter our behaviour on the micro level to prevent all transmission, as it simply won& #39;t pose the same threat.

/17

In summary:

The test event is harmless.

Post-vax, we have no moral obligation to stop every single COVID case, just like we wouldn& #39;t adjust our behaviour for flu.

Stop sneering at young people having fun after all we& #39;ve sacrificed.

The end is coming. Deal with it.

/END

PS - if anyone on iSAGE happens to read this, a thought experiment to explore the logic of your world of eternal social distancing: if we can no longer meet new people and have sex, why wouldn& #39;t the human race die out? Do you have some arranged marriage system up your sleeves?

Latest Threads Unrolled: