Sage advice and politics

“Guided by the science.” The phrase has become “the mantra of the Government’s response to the coronavirus crisis”, repeated whenever its approach has been questioned, said Daniel Capurro in The Daily Telegraph. But it’s hard to know what “the science” actually means, and harder still to know who conveys it to ministers. Essentially, it comes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), the body of experts convened by the Chief Scientific Adviser to advise during crises; however, Sage’s meetings were – until recently – shrouded in secrecy, its members largely unknown. One possible reason for that secrecy emerged last Friday, said The Guardian, when this paper revealed a list of those attending its crucial meetings in March. They included Dominic Cummings (right), the PM’s chief adviser. Sage is meant to offer a “clear separation between scientific truths and political values”. Cummings’ attendance violates that; witnesses say he actively participated. Did his presence affect Sage’s “costly” decision to recommend less stringent social-distancing measures than other European states? “The public ought to know.”

The secrecy surrounding Sage “has gone too far”, said The Daily Telegraph. There is no reason why the Government “should not have someone on the committee to report on its deliberations”. But keeping the members of such a vital body secret – a decision ministers have now reversed – should be wrong, and has given conspiracy theorists “a field day”. The issue of scientific advice has become unfortunately politicised, said Freddie Sayers on UnHerd. Take, for instance, the well-publicised differences of opinion between Sweden’s leading epidemiologists, and Britain’s, which have guided the two countries’ differing approaches. In one corner, Johan Giesecke believes that, ultimately, you can’t stop the virus; that lockdown will only slow it; that the death toll only really flattens out when the most vulnerable have been killed off. In the other corner, Sage member Neil Ferguson thinks that even partially lifting lockdown would cost some 100,000 lives by the end of the year. Obviously, “the science” is far from clear. We may prefer Giesecke’s approach or Ferguson’s, but we shouldn’t pretend this is “simply a scientific question, or even an easy moral choice between right and wrong”.

Quite, said Matthew Parris in The Times. “You pays your epidemiologists and you takes your choice.” The big decisions are political ones; politicians shouldn’t hide behind the scientists. That’s true, but the argument doesn’t end there, said Tom Chivers on UnHerd. Epidemiology is hellishly complex. It’s unfair to say scientists should have known that the pandemic was coming, and that its impact “was going to be terrible”. However, they should have realised it might come, and that if it did, it could be disastrous; and the politicians should have taken sensible steps to avoid that. Did they? In a few years, when the inevitable inquiry reaches its conclusions, “we’ll find out”.