“We followed the science” is a lie. As one who’s worked in an advisory capacity, “advisers advise, ministers decide” is true. No good adviser, especially a scientist on unsettled science, would tell a PM “do this”. It’s above the pay grade. They’d provide options + explain risks. https://twitter.com/neera_jah/status/1252208796245647361

And if you would like proof of this simple principle, have a look at how gov’ts the-world-over have responded to very clear advice on the environment (based on much more settled science). Or any other policy review. Their classic response is “well these are only recommendations”.

Not to mention that - as anyone who has ever worked at a non-governmental, independent agency will, I‘m sure, confirm - when a gov’t really, REALLY wants a decision to go a particular way, it leaves you in no doubt as to the direction in which it wants “the science” to lead it.

At this stage, to be honest, my sense is that Vallance and Whitty are nothing more or less than cooperative and acquiescent human shields. When the time comes they will be ceremonially thrown to the wolves, with a comfortable compensation package and a peerage, naturally.

So, no, Johnson & Co. did not “follow the science”. They followed one of many paths offered, supported by SOME science, and it was the path they wanted.

It was their decision and the fact they’re distancing themselves from it, gives a very big clue as to whether it was right.

After all, ask yourself this simple question: when has a politician EVER refused credit for a decision that he or she thinks will pan our well?

The mere fact they keep repeating “we followed the science”, instead of claiming credit, is a big clue that they think they fucked up.