I think there's really two core philosophies underpinning public health responses.

One is that populations are like cats, and trying to herd them with appeals to reason is a fool's game — so you need to engage in some emotional appeals and social engineering to get them to behave in such a way that keeps everyone safe.

The other is that you come out and be very blunt and transparent with people. You tell them exactly how risky and bad things are. You show them the science and try and bring them along, and build a sense of solidarity for the necessary sacrifices that everyone needs to take.

I think, through the pandemic, we oscillated between both. I'm partial to Door Number Two, but I recognize you've got to user Option One, too. But I think we're now dealing with the externalities of 1, and it makes you think that 2 might've informed more of our response.

And I'm sort of politically everything everywhere all of the time. I'm skeptical of state power, but recognize it seems to be the only way to drive good social development and right systemic inequalities. But I think it's healthy to come at government with an innate and healthy skepticism. So I'm libertarian-ish. Libertarian-light. (If you want to stick me on the political compass, I trend slightly to the left of the centre, but waaay towards the bottom.)