I go on Twitter sometimes, but it's very polarised. I've looked at both sides. I think lockdowns were harmful, but understand why they happened. Some aspects were exceptionally cruel, but I don't think those elements would happen again. I also don't know why some think it's not a case unless you make stuff up (deliberately). So many times I'll see an article like 'lockdown caused x,y,z' and click on the article and it's either nothing to do with lockdown or is giving data from prior to lockdown. These are from journalists, 'scientists' - obviously know what they're tweeting is bollocks, but people don't read beyond the headline.
I also think what we are doing now is exceptionally cruel - especially in places where people have very little choice in being there (schools, hospitals etc). I guess I feel I'm middle of the road - let people have a life, don't unnecessarily deliberately harm others, let people have safer access to the places they need to go. What surprises me is that this is seen as extreme as we have gone so far the other way.
I was a bit naive when I first started questioning - thinking those that spoke about lockdown mental health impacts, loss of learning etc were unaware of risks to kids/staff etc now or would use their influence to speak out - I genuinely don't understand why when we are not even in a lockdown they don't push to reduce some of the same impacts being caused by policy now, that they were upset were caused by lockdown.
I find Twitter useful for links to actual journal articles though and giving explanations that the layman can understand. I also find the long covid private group useful.