This is a powerful critique - but it has one serious misconception. That is, it conflates the advice of the Behavioural insights team at No. 10, based on 'nudge' principles, with the broader Behavioural science advice given to government. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/absolutely-wrong-how-uk-coronavirus-test-strategy-unravelled?CMP=share_btn_tw

'Nudge' is just one approach, a highly controversial one, and one rejected by many behavioural scientists/psychologists (see our critique: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/two-psychologies-and-coronavirus and that of Olivier Klein: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/social-psychology-coronavirus-will-flies-save-us).

So don't tar us all with the same brush, and in rejecting specific advice, reject all behavioural science. Because behavioural science is critical. The graph below shows how much infection rates depends upon compliance.

In contrast to the nudge approach, which is generally used as a substitute for taking structural and systemic measures, we need to use our behavioural science/psychological insights to understand how to maximise compliance with these measures.

... and most of us who have been involved with this issue, have been trying to do precisely that. Our priority has been to work with the medical scientists and modellers, not to invoke a flawed psychology to undermine them.