And the inevitable increase in unpleasant comments and tweets that follow these sorts of articles make the prospect of speaking out again in the future less appealing.īut as the inquiry picks up pace, it’s vital that scientists continue to share and discuss the evidence on the impact of pandemic policy. Indeed, the experience of having your name and picture splashed in a national newspaper is an unnerving one. These pieces run the risk of a chilling effect, intimidating those who are critical of the government’s response into silence.ĬOVID: lifting the remaining measures is a dangerous and senseless move – expert view But it is worrying that national newspapers seem to have taken to impugning the integrity of experts and peer-reviewed science that has been published in a well-respected academic journal. As a co-author of two articles in the series, my colleagues and I have repeatedly been labelled “ hardline” experts in national newspapers.ĭisagreement and debate over government policy aren’t in themselves a problem. Some of these articles are explicitly critical of the government’s approach to managing the COVID pandemic. The articles’ brief was to investigate successes and failures in the UK’s pandemic response, including whether politicians made the best use of the scientific advice and evidence that was presented to them.
KINGDOM UNDER FIRE 2 UNITED STATES SERIES
The BMJ recently commissioned a series of peer-reviewed articles providing evidence for the COVID inquiry. I Wei Huang/Shutterstock Scientists under fire The UK government delayed locking down, despite advice from independent experts. Margaret Thatcher’s well-known aphorism “advisers advise, ministers decide” held true even in this unprecedented time of crisis. Far from the government’s touted approach of being guided by the science, experts’ advice was frequently not heeded. It has been estimated that delays in implementing England’s winter lockdown led to thousands of avoidable deaths. Ultimately Christmas plans were cancelled for millions at the last minute. But Johnson was insistent that he would “save Christmas”. After emerging in the autumn, in December 2020 the highly transmissible alpha variant rose to dominance in the UK (and eventually around the world), causing another steep rise in cases.īoris Johnson's pandemic legacy – where he went wrong managing COVID (and some things he got right)Īgain, scientists warned that acting early would be better than acting late. High levels of cases inevitably led to more opportunities for the virus to replicate and mutate. Instead, the government waited until early November before implementing a lockdown. It is well documented that the government frequently ignored scientific advice in favour of populist policies which would eventually and inevitably backfire on them.įor example, in September 2020, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) recommended a circuit breaker lockdown to curb a significant resurgence of COVID infections. ‘Advisers advise, ministers decide’ĭespite their claim of being “guided by the science”, even the most cursory glance at the government’s decision-making reveals that this was often not the case. This is part of an ongoing narrative that seeks to shift the blame away from the government by depicting it as beholden to all-powerful scientists. More recently, we’ve seen Conservative leadership candidate Rishi Sunak argue that scientists were given too much power in pandemic decision-making. I saw him discuss that with the prime minister.
He used the whole ‘We are following the science’ as a way so that he could always say, ‘Well, if things go wrong, we will blame the scientists and it is not my fault’.
I certainly believe that the secretary of state, Matt Hancock, used Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty as shields for himself – yes. Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to Boris Johnson, told the Health and Social Care Committee and Science and Technology Committee joint inquiry in 2021:
0 kommentar(er)
