PM must have final say on lockdown, says chief scientist
BRITAIN’S top scientist today defends the Government’s right to choose when and how it eases the lockdown, despite public criticism from several members of the panel advising ministers on the Covid-19 outbreak.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Sir Patrick Vallance says ministers have to take “many other factors into consideration” beyond scientific advice, adding that such advice should be “independent of politics”.
His intervention comes as Boris Johnson faced claims that he was easing lockdown restrictions too quickly, with one member of the 55-strong Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies stating that “many of us” would rather wait for infection rates to be reduced even further before relaxing the measures.
In another public criticism of government policy, Sir Jeremy Farrar, suggested on Twitter that “clear science advice” showed that Covid-19 was “spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England.” But Sir Patrick, who chairs Sage in his role as Chief Scientific Adviser, states: “Science advice to Cobra [the government emergencies committee] and to ministers needs to be direct and given without fear or favour. But it is advice.
“Ministers must decide and have to take many other factors into consideration. In a democracy, that is the only way it should be.
“The science advice needs to be independent of politics.”
He also defends Sage against criticism, saying the panel was “not an infallible body of experts and nor is there cosy group think”.
Last night Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer, insisted that the “consensus of scientific advice” was that the roll-out of contact tracing of those infected with Covid-19 during the next easing of measures should keep the reproduction of the virus below one, meaning the disease will be in retreat nationwide.
“Our advice is to continue to watch this very carefully, and we will give further advice to the Government about whether we think it is possible to make further easements after that,” he said.
“That will absolutely be a matter of advice for us and decision for the politicians.” He urged the public not to “tear the pants” out of the slight lifting of measures, adding: “We are at a risky point.” Last week, Mr Johnson said the Government’s five tests for easing the lockdown had all been met, allowing
the relaxation of some rules from tomorrow. Under the changes, groups of up to six people will be able to meet outdoors, children in Years 1 and 6 and reception will return to school, and professional sportsmen and elite athletes will be able to resume competitive sports behind closed doors.
Concerns over the impact of the lockdown on the economy, as well as levels of domestic violence and child abuse, have been growing.
Yesterday, Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor, warned of a “very high risk” of mass redundancies.
Writing in this newspaper, Sajid Javid, the former home secretary, warns that the restrictions appear to be facilitating a “surge” in sexual abuse of children, with vulnerable youngsters “isolating alongside their abusers”.
But on Friday Prof John Edmunds, a member of Sage, said that many scientists would like to see the incidence rate driven down further before restrictions are lifted, and warned the price might be 80 deaths a day. Sir Jeremy and Prof Peter Horby, another prominent member, said they agreed with their colleague’s remarks.
Prof Horby stated: “The R level is between 0.7 and 0.9, it’s only a bit below one, so, we have got very little headroom, actually.”
Minutes released by Sage last week showed that experts warned the Government that its test, track and trace strategy would be insufficient to stop the infection rate rising again.
Sir Patrick says Sage papers should be released “as close to real time as is feasible” so that the public and other scientists can “track the evolution” of thinking.
Sir Patrick’s reference to the “many other factors” that ministers must take into account is likely to be welcomed in departments such as the Treasury, where a confidential assessment estimated that the coronavirus crisis will cost the Exchequer almost £300billion this year and could require an increase in income tax, the end of the triple lock on state pension increases and a twoyear public sector pay freeze.
Sir Patrick also addressed the row over herd immunity for the first time, saying it had never been a policy.
“Allowing many people to catch Covid to create widespread immunity was never an aim and never could have been with a committee comprised of many doctors who have spent their lives dedicated to improving health,” he said.