Saturday, August 15, 2020
When 'the science' becomes inconvenient
The one phrase we haven't heard that much of in the last few weeks is 'we are following the science'. The reason for that is possibly because the UK government is no longer taking the advice of scientists so seriously, as they try to get the economy in England back underway.
In truth, it has never been entirely about the science. Every decision has been political and the advice of scientists has just been one factor in the conclusions that were reached. What has changed is the weighting given to that scientific advice as other agendas kick in.
This has been made clear by the latest revelation in the Independent, who report on the views of one expert, that the latest easing of England’s coronavirus lockdown was a political decision not founded in concrete scientific advice.
John Edmunds, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a member of the government’s Sage group of advisers, is quoted as saying: “Nothing has really changed in the epidemiology over the last couple of weeks” since Boris Johnson announced that the reopening of beauty parlours and other businesses would be delayed.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that although survey data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) appeared to show a drop in how many people were infectious, from one in 1,500 to one in 1,900, “there’s huge uncertainty about each of those estimates”:
He added: “If you want to take a positive view, that’s a small improvement. From a scientific point of view, I think we would probably conclude that it’s not changed very much.” Other epidemiological indicators suggested a similarly small degree of change, he said.
From Saturday, beauty parlours and other close-contact services, soft play areas, casinos and indoor performance venues can reopen following a delay caused by a spike in cases.
Of the decision to further ease lockdown, Prof Edmunds said: “I don’t think it’s really been taken on epidemiological grounds, I think it’s really been taken primarily for economic reasons, and there’s of course extremely good reasons for doing that.”
Asked if he feared England was moving too quickly, he added: “Again those are political decisions. I think you have to balance the epidemiology with the economics and other considerations. I think all of us would prefer there to be much lower numbers of infections but the government has to balance these things out.”
So, now we know.
In truth, it has never been entirely about the science. Every decision has been political and the advice of scientists has just been one factor in the conclusions that were reached. What has changed is the weighting given to that scientific advice as other agendas kick in.
This has been made clear by the latest revelation in the Independent, who report on the views of one expert, that the latest easing of England’s coronavirus lockdown was a political decision not founded in concrete scientific advice.
John Edmunds, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a member of the government’s Sage group of advisers, is quoted as saying: “Nothing has really changed in the epidemiology over the last couple of weeks” since Boris Johnson announced that the reopening of beauty parlours and other businesses would be delayed.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that although survey data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) appeared to show a drop in how many people were infectious, from one in 1,500 to one in 1,900, “there’s huge uncertainty about each of those estimates”:
He added: “If you want to take a positive view, that’s a small improvement. From a scientific point of view, I think we would probably conclude that it’s not changed very much.” Other epidemiological indicators suggested a similarly small degree of change, he said.
From Saturday, beauty parlours and other close-contact services, soft play areas, casinos and indoor performance venues can reopen following a delay caused by a spike in cases.
Of the decision to further ease lockdown, Prof Edmunds said: “I don’t think it’s really been taken on epidemiological grounds, I think it’s really been taken primarily for economic reasons, and there’s of course extremely good reasons for doing that.”
Asked if he feared England was moving too quickly, he added: “Again those are political decisions. I think you have to balance the epidemiology with the economics and other considerations. I think all of us would prefer there to be much lower numbers of infections but the government has to balance these things out.”
So, now we know.
