Sage scientists split over face masks for public, chief adviser admits
GOVERNMENT advisers are divided on how best to handle key aspects of the coronavirus crisis, the chairman of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) has said.
Sir Patrick Vallance said there had been “heated and prolonged” discussions – in particular about the scientific evidence about whether the public should wear face masks, with Government advice still awaited.
He also cast doubt on ministers’ hopes that it would be possible to issue “immunity passports” showing those who were protected against the virus.
Ministers have repeatedly said that their response to the virus – and the use of social-distancing measures – is “led by science”. But Sir Patrick, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, suggested there was limited consensus among more than 100 scientists informing its response.
He also promised to publish a list of those on the Sage committee, and its subgroups, amid growing concerns about a lack of transparency over its operations.
Last week it emerged that its meetings had been attended by Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s senior aide, prompting concern that the committee might be subjected to political pressure.
Yesterday, Sir Patrick said Whitehall officials were able to “listen in” and ask questions, but insisted they were “not part of the general discussion”.
He said that while the identities of experts advising Government were not normally disclosed until after an emergency was over, he intended to be more transparent. “I believe that we should be more prepared to publish names sooner, and intend to do so shortly,” he added. “So we will be publishing names of those that are happy to have their names published.”
He said the group would also release a list of papers it had considered, eventually publishing the research itself.
Sir Patrick defended Sage’s record, saying that following its first meeting, in January, the committee had urged ministers to ramp up testing.
Yet in March, routine testing was abandoned, and restricted largely to hospital cases.
An expansion of testing to include NHS staff and key workers was only introduced in recent weeks, after Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, pledged to ensure 100,000 tests a day
were carried out by the end of April.
Sir Patrick revealed fierce debate between scientists about policies to tackle the spread of the virus.
In a briefing yesterday, he said: “The weaker the evidence and the more controversial it is the more heated and prolonged the discussions are, and the more opinion becomes the dominant feature. The challenge is not to allow the dominant voices to become the ones that necessarily win the argument on that,” he said, “because it has to be one that’s based on evidence as far as we can.” He described recent discussions about the scientific evidence to support face mask wearing by the general public as a “classic example” of such debate.
“We had several meetings to discuss the evidence; the evidence is quite difficult to interpret because it’s not very strong. We’ve given advice through to ministers for them to make policy decisions on the back of it, and ... we’ve also been really clear where the uncertainty lies,” he said, saying it was down to ministers to make a judgment.
Sir Patrick said it was “absolutely clear” that “high-grade” medical face masks were crucial in healthcare settings, and must not be compromised by any decision to suggest the public could benefit from facial coverings.
He said: “There are certain types of face masks that actually are much simpler to procure to use which could be beneficial but we’ve given our thoughts on that, then ministers will make deci- sions on what they would like to do.”
He also said there was uncertainty among scientists about how far people become immune following infection.
Last week, the World Health Organisation said there was currently “no evidence that people who have recovered from Covid-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection”. But Sir Patrick suggested there was broad agreement within Sage that some immunity was likely to be conferred – though not enough to be confident that immunity passports could be issued, as ministers have suggested. “There is quite a strong consensus that most people get antibodies, and those antibodies are likely to be protective in some form, although we can’t be sure to the exact degree,” he said.
He suggested that the debate swung from “thinking nobody gets immune” to “thinking that you’ve got something as clear and straightforward as an immunity passport that everyone could just go around waving” when the truth was likely to fall between the two.
Yesterday, Prof Susan Michie, a Sage subcommittee member, suggested that blanket stay-at-home advice to over70s could not be maintained when the lockdown restrictions were eased. Prof Michie, a University College London health psychology expert, called for “more reformed and nuanced” guidance to take account of differences within age groups.
She said: “There are many 70 and 80-year-olds that are much fitter and healthier than those who are a lot younger.
“I think the problem is that if people don’t perceive the guidance to be proportionate to their own situation there will be problems with adherence, and we now know more about who is at risk and the whole progress of the disease.”