Scientists did not want schools and shops to open

Lifting restrictions is a ‘political decision’ that could push the R rate up, Sage advisers warn

DISAGREEMENTS between scientific advisers and the Government were laid bare yesterday as it emerged that experts warned against the opening of non-essential shops and schools.

In a new tranche of papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage), scientists advised ministers that opening shops could push the R rate above one.

High-street retailers including fashion, homeware and toy shops have been given the green light to open from June 15, as long as they take precautions to ensure social distancing.

But a newly released document from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) warned: “There is limited evidence on the effect of closing of non-essential retail, libraries, bars, restaurants, etc, but it is likely that R would return to above one and a subsequent exponential growth in cases.”

The estimate was based on a reproduction number of 0.6, but current Government estimates put the R rate at between 0.7 and 0.9.

The Sage papers also suggested that reopening schools a month later than the Government has planned could have a significant impact on the number of deaths related to coronavirus.

SPI-M modelling compiled on May 4, by scientists from Imperial College London, looked at the impact of schools returning in June or July, and suggested that the latter could reduce the number of deaths in hospitals.

While the impact of reopening primary schools in June would be negligible until August, according to the modelling, potential deaths would rise to just under 400 a day by October. In comparison, reopening in July would see deaths creep up more slowly from August. However, a document dated April 27 added that “there are currently different views in SPI-M on the impacts of reopening schools on R”.

At a briefing yesterday, members of SPI-M suggested it was risky to ease lockdown when the number of infections in the community was still high and suggested it was a political decision to lift some restrictions.

John Edmunds, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said that if the R rate remained around one, the country would continue to see around 80 deaths a day.

“I think many of us would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels,” he said. “With relatively high incidence, and with an untested track and trace, I think we are taking some risk here … we will be keeping flat at quite a high level of 8,000 new infections a day. If there is a one per cent infection fatality rate, that’s about 80 deaths per day. That’s clearly a political decision; it’s not a scientific decision.”

Minutes from a Sage meeting on May 1, make clear Sage’s concern that “any delay beyond 48 to 72 hours in isolating contacts under the new track and trace programme would increase the R significantly”. The Prime Minister this week refused to commit to any timescale by which 24-hour testing turnaround could be achieved.

Members of SPI-M warned current measures of social distancing would need to be in place for the foreseeable future as track and trace would only reduce transmission by 5-20 per cent.

Last night, Sir Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, said: “Covid-19 is spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England. [Test and trace] has to be in place, fully working, capable of dealing with any surge immediately, locally responsive … and trusted.”