Read on Twitter
The science informing the response to #Covid_19 in the UK (and mostly many other places) is the product of a community, not of a single expert. This is what we explain in this letter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVjFOw-pB2aRe3uXXXIfyDrJpef5Qp0B8_l9en6buM0LTjRSYq/pub
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVjFOw-pB2aRe3uXXXIfyDrJpef5Qp0B8_l9en6buM0LTjRSYq/pub
with @StfnFlsch @MarcBaguelin Julia Gog @sbfnk @AdamJKucharski Mark Jit John Edmunds @petrakle and many more
In reply to @neil_ferguson being portrayed as as 'the architect of the lockdown'. In contrast, the list of experts whose consensus informs the response is rather long: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups
My 2-cents (and mine only): we need more transparency, not only on the science (which pushes a lot in that direction), but on how evidence is used in decision-making. Good step in that direction by SAGE sharing consensus reports: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response
