Read on Twitter
The contrast of the two here is very interesting. Neither the Sunday Times article, nor the government rebuttal is overtly incorrect or false. However it reveals something which is likely to continue through to the lessons from the outbreak. (Thread) https://twitter.com/BiotechPolicyUK/status/1252238640576712704
First and foremost, the rebuttal is a point/counter-point in incredibly technical language. This shifts focus from mistakes and decisions to technical details. This moves the discussion from accountability to what is known/unknown.
Second, this is the first and only blog post from DHSC and the second blog post overall in a month. This raises key questions about why the government chose to respond and why this particular piece? Because it gained traction? Perhaps but there may be something deeper
The Times piece didnt focus so much on technical details but a narrative of decisions made. This meant that what was being criticised wasn't necessarily actions or information but the way that information was used.
The language used in the rebuttal and the technical details strike me as very defensive. This directly links to the above question of what the Times piece is criticising: decision-making processes.
This is why that shift to the technical is so important. Focusing on the knowns and unknowns (rather than how that uncertainty was handled) shifts accountability away from the government towards science.
When it comes to learning lessons from this outbreak, I can see this happening a lot. Questions will be asked about who knew what and when, who made what decisions and when. What is equally important, it the accountability for *how* those decisions were made:
Who was in the room? What was presented and who presented it? What considerations were taken into account? How were different impact groups represented/considered? Who made the final decision? How were gaps in knowledge filled? How were decisions taken based on assumptions?
The answers to all of these questions requires the government to show one thing it hasn't so far: humility. It needs to accept that some mistakes may have been made and that better decision-making processes can help ameliorate them. Humility is just something we are yet to see.
Tldr; the Sunday Times article may have gotten some facts wrong, but its asking a question that the government really doesnt want to be asked: how did the government make decisions with uncertain science?
