Read on Twitter
This @Reuters article is good on many accounts - an excellent example of careful investigative reporting. Yet, I think it likely gets a few things wrong on the role of scientists and science 'communication' in crises (yes I'm afraid it's a) #thread: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci-idUSKBN21P1VF
(1) The article focuses on SPI-M (SAGE subgroup on modelling epidemic spread). However, Gov't took advice on NPIs (social distancing, school closures, etc.) from SPI-B - the part of SAGE that, you're guessing it, focuses on *behavioural* interventions.
(2) Their documents suggest split positions over what measures to suggest, and focus on public reactions, rather than effects.
(3) To be clear, this is the kind of advice they were asked to provide *by* the COBRA team. The remit of expert advisors in these contexts is always limited, as is time. They do not advise on things they are not asked for.
(4) The Gov't seems to have been primarily interested in the maintenance of public order and compliance (and, worryingly, keeping schools open to allow people to continue working). The absence of recommendations for social distancing needs to be understood also in this context.
(5) The 'knowledge base' for these recommendations was and is narrow (as SPI-B recognized) and gives limited grounds for inference: for instance, there is no way to know that the way the public reacts in Japan is going to be similar to the way the public reacts in the UK.
(6) Gov't's reluctance to implement stricter distancing measures until the Imperial College study, in this sense, needs to be seen as a case of prioritizing a specific epistemic object - the population - rather than the virus. I've written about that here: https://discoversociety.org/2020/03/20/no-such-thing-as-society-liberal-paternalism-politics-of-expertise-and-the-corona-crisis/
(7) More about this (and other stuff) in an article @LinseyMcgoey and I are writing at the moment, so you'll hopefully get to read all about it soon!
