Scientists advice that the PM decided not to follow
LAST month, the Government’s Sage advisory body had a Zoom meeting to agree its advice for the next step in the country’s fight against Covid.
The 21 scientists included chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance and chief medical officer Chris Whitty and his deputies, Jonathan Van-Tam and Jenny Harries.
The minutes reveal they agreed ‘interventions’ were needed to reverse the ‘exponential rise’ in cases, and a report listing them was prepared for the Prime Minister. But when Boris Johnson addressed the nation the next day, September 22, barely any of their recommendations were included.
So what were these suggestions and how likely are they to work?
CIRCUIT BREAKER
This sharp shock would last up to three weeks, which Sage said ‘should act to reduce R below 1’. The committee acknowledged downsides such as greater domestic violence, ‘division and anger’, and a blow to mental health. But it said the temporary nature of the measures would limit the impact.
It also admitted that as soon as restrictions were lifted, cases would start increasing again, raising the prospect of an on- off- on pattern of restrictions.
WORK FROM HOME
One of the few recommendations Mr Johnson took on board, asking people the following day to ‘work from home if they can’.
But although the economic impact was huge, even if everyone who could work from home did so, the effect on the R rate would be just 0.2 to 0.4, Sage calculated.
They also acknowledged the inconsistency in Government messaging it would entail.
‘Needs clear guidance to employers to encourage working from home and establishing facilities to support this, especially since it involves reversing guidance currently in operation,’ they said.
It would also create divisions in society, with only white- collar workers able to avoid the virus.
STOP MIXING BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS
This remains ‘ the most widely recorded setting of transmission,’ Sage said. Test and trace data shows homes are the top location for infection and reinfection, partly because it’s where people stop following rules.
Two-metre distancing goes out the window, people hug their relatives and of course nobody wears a mask. But despite the over
whelming evidence, the Prime Minister was reluctant to impose a ban on socialising.
Having seen a backlash against the ‘rule of six’ introduced a few days earlier, he was acutely aware that any further restrictions on visiting friends and relatives would be deeply unpopular.
SHUT BARS, GYMS AND RESTAURANTS
Sage warned that the ‘environmental risk’ in pubs and bars was ‘likely to be higher than many other indoor settings’ due to the proximity at which people sit and duration of exposure. But evidence of the effectiveness of closing these institutions is shaky at best.
Sage estimated that closing all hospitality and hairdressers would reduce R by no more than 0.2, and cited only ‘anecdotal evidence’ of outbreaks linked to bars in the UK, US and Europe.
The committee was disparaging about the option of forcing bars and restaurants to close early.
‘Curfews likely to have a marginal impact,’ its notes reveal.
Mr Johnson, under pressure to minimise the economic impact on the country, chose to keep hospitality open but introduce curfews, against the committee’s advice.
CLOSE UNIVERSITIES
‘All university and college teaching to be online unless absolutely essential,’ the advice from Sage reads. ‘Outbreaks are very likely in universities, given their size and the close contact.
Closing them would cut the R rate by 0.2 to 0.5. But Mr Johnson ignored the advice, and the opportunity has gone now. With outbreaks at many universities, sending all students home would act as a major seeding event.