‘Dominic Cummings’ presence will distort a
discussion about differences, which are are meant to be narrowed through
debate.’
The Guardian view on Dominic Cummings: is he able
to give Sage advice?
Editorial
With the prime minister’s chief adviser attending
the scientific advisory panel during this crisis, it is right to ask whether
ministers are guided only by the science they want to hear
Sun 26 Apr
2020 19.22 BSTLast modified on Sun 26 Apr 2020 19.38 BST
The
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is a body of experts convened to
counsel ministers on how to handle specific crises. When dealing with the
coronavirus pandemic, the government likes to say it is “guided by the
science”, but what is that advice and who gives it? Sage’s meetings are closed
affairs, its recommendations private and its minutes, if they are ever
published, turn up weeks late. Until last Friday, the group’s members were
unknown. When the Guardian revealed who was attending Sage, a possible reason
for the secrecy emerged.
It was the
presence of Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser, at the
meetings rather than the scientists that made the headlines. This might explain
how Britain stumbled into the crisis. Sage was meant to offer a clearer
separation between scientific truths and political values. It has allowed
ministers to claim that they are being guided by objective reasons rather than
ideology. But having a political adviser of Mr Cummings’ importance, and a data
analyst who worked with him on the leave campaign, at Sage pierces that
argument.
It also
makes it harder to claim there was not a political cost to ministerial judgment
calls based on evidence tainted by ideological influence. Sage recommended less
stringent social distancing measures when other European capitals implemented
tough policies. Its experts underestimated the percentage of people who would
have to be hospitalised. The conventional response of lockdown, mass testing
and tracing was snubbed initially in favour of “herd immunity”. This was a
costly mistake – making it harder to source chemicals, and personal protective
equipment. What was Mr Cummings’ role in discussions about these decisions? The
public ought to know.
Mr
Cummings, with his admiration of computer modelling to “war game epidemics”, is
unlikely to be interested in the tried-and-tested preventative measures
advocated by the World Health Organization as early as January. In its
bulletins the WHO advocated the “test, trace and isolate” regime that Britain
only woke up to after allowing the virus to spread unimpeded through the
population. Sage’s lack of any public health experts would seem a mistake in
the light of the government’s current strategy.
Mr
Cummings’ presence will distort a discussion about differences, which are meant
to be narrowed through debate. The ability to speak up without the perceived
fear of sanction is necessary for a healthy exchange of views. He is known for
being disagreeable about disagreement. Scientists on Sage would not dissent
perhaps in the way that you might expect them to. It is plausible that Mr
Cummings may single out a troublesome academic who questioned whether it was
right, for example, for Boris Johnson to announce he had shaken the hands of
people infected with coronavirus. (It wasn’t.)
Falling out
of favour might cost scientists not just a gong but also lucrative government
funding streams. Mr Cummings increases the chances that dissident views on Sage
remain just that. What is to stop him usurping the role of the chief scientific
adviser who is meant to be the source of advice to Mr Johnson but doesn’t share
a personal chemistry with him?
There is no
reason why the membership of Sage should be kept secret. Declarations of
interest ought to be published. Minutes of meetings should be made available
promptly. Who can be relied upon for giving advice in a time of crisis is a
matter of national importance. It is obvious that it is best to involve those
who are expert in the area. Mr Cummings is not one of them.
33m ago
09:20
Johnson
says the government should only ease up on the lockdown when it is confident
there will be no second peak.
He says he
wants “maximum transparency” about how the decisions to relax restrictions are
taken.
He says he
wants to involve the opposition parties as much as possible.
He says
measures are in place to win “phase two”, just as the UK is winning phase one.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário