there is a notable split (with the exception of David King) between people who have worked at the centre of govt and people who have not... https://twitter.com/AlexGAThomas/status/1253810294847148032

people who have worked in govt tend to think this isn't very exceptional, makes sense for No.10 advisers to sit in on key meetings to they can understand what is going on .. and to ask some questions..

the advisers might say things like .. so if I was explaining that to the PM, that would mean xxx (and sometimes - no idea if happens at SAGE - wouldn't make much sense there) you might be asked for a PM view

but this was a meeting presaging a major change of policy .. as a PM adviser I would have wanted to understand it -- that is part of the job

. of course people like me were not nearly so intimidating as Cummings.. I never sacked people, frogmarched them out of Downing Street etc - so I can understand that his sheer presence might have stymied discussion

but to think that SAGE was compromised by the presence of Cummings suggests you have no faith in the GCSA or the CMO to insist on their right to make independent judgments - what we pay them for.. that is the much bigger issue

it also implies all the other experts in the room (many of whom have had ample opporunity to mention that Cummings presence influenced the debate) are a bunch of spineless wimps too..

if they thought No.10 was bending the science, wouldn't some at least have walked out... ? we all know Cummings reveres scientists.. as opposed to policy wonks.. I'd just assume he was there for the geekery

and if you think that the minutes would give you a blow by blolw account of Cummings overruling scientists I would simply say, you haven't read many minutes of govt meetings..

As @AlexGAThomas says, we may both be proved wrong.. but am not proposing to lose sleep over this one tonight.