Coronavirus: Unofficial scientific advice to govt fails to consider easing lockdown
The report does not say what scientific evidence is behind the government's recently published guidance to the public.
Tuesday 12 May 2020 17:31, UK
"This is what transparency looks like," said Sir David King as he launched a critical report of the government's handling of the coronavirus epidemic.
He's a former government chief scientist and the report was the first from a panel of experts assembled to rival the official Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
The 12-strong group live-streamed their two-hour meeting on YouTube last week and have just produced what they say is a constructive report which they've sent to the government and parliament.
It's worth saying that the news briefing to launch the report wasn't open to the public.
"We were told the membership (of SAGE) was secret. Why on Earth would you want to be secret?", said Sir David.
"We are focused on what is in the best national interest and doing it openly so that people can judge whether or not the government is following the best advice."
In fact the membership of the official SAGE committee is now in the public domain, although two people have still refused permission for their names to be released.
And some of the advice that SAGE has considered since the beginning of February has also been opened up for scrutiny, including evidence, as we revealed last week, showing that there were warnings about the potentially catastrophic impact of the virus several weeks before the sudden lockdown.
There is, though, a lot more of the evidence that is still being withheld, most importantly the actual advice SAGE has given to ministers.
It's right that the government and its advisers are held to account over their handling of the coronavirus crisis.
Other countries saw the warning signs far earlier than the UK. We were the last major European country to lockdown, we took too long to ramp up testing and the provision of PPE for health and care workers has been hopelessly inadequate.
:: Listen to the Daily podcast on , , ,
The independent SAGE group has added its own criticisms about the premature abandonment of contact tracing in early March, the reliability of the testing figures announced in the government's daily news briefing and the junking of the clear "stay at home" message as the lockdown is lifted.
But some of its recommendations are consistent with government policy.
They say the virus should be suppressed and not allowed to spread, even in a controlled way. Tick. The government says the R number must be kept below one so the epidemic shrinks.
They want a return to contact tracing. Tick. There's an app being tested and 18,000 virus detectives being recruited.
And they want more real-time, real-world data to get a more reliable picture of what the virus is doing. Tick. The Office of National Statistics has just published the first batch of data from viral swabs on more than 7,000 people.
Sadly, the report didn't consider the government strategy for easing the lockdown.
We still know nothing about the scientific advice that underpins it.
What is the evidence that says it's safe to meet one of your parents outdoors, but not both at the same time, even if they live together?
Why can you meet a friend in a public space, but not your back garden?
How low do cases have to go to allow schools to start opening up on 1 June and perhaps restaurants in July?
The public has a right to know.
That's what transparency means. A clear, contemporary assessment of the science published alongside the political strategy.
Millions of people are prisoners in their own homes and it's right they understand on what evidence.