Another excellent piece of journalism, and another detailed investigation that pushes against the idea the govt were “following the science” in The Times. A few particularly explosive things:

1. We know the modellers were pushing for much more stringent measures; the Govt didn’t ask them to run a model with such measures so they took matters into their own hands. The govt continued to delay having been shown this information.

2. Boris having received the modelling confirming their strategy would lead to 250,000 on March 3, and then having the new modelling on March 11, delayed and dithered for over a week. These extracts make it clear these were political considerations.

3. The idea, contrary to the modellers, that big events didn’t matter and people would tire was at the very least endorsed by and pushed by Vallance.

The core parts of this story have now been confirmed by multiple sources and investigations: modelling experts told govt their strategy would lead to 250,000, there was delay. They modelled more stringent measures, there was still delay on the basis of political considerations.

The CMO and CSA got things wrong, but the govt had sufficient information, modelling, scientific backing to overrule them - and they didn’t.

I have to say I went through a transformation of initially thinking the govts only failure was not challenging, see here.. https://twitter.com/anonmugwump/status/1241771758484623360

..and then as we got new evidence, changed my mind into thinking this was not simply a failure to challenge but being provided with enough information from experts to conclude lockdown was necessary in early March and making a political choice not to. https://twitter.com/anonmugwump/status/1251790011760095233

It now seems incredibly likely that this is a story of govt failure, not expert failure. Everyone in those teams who carried out that modelling in March (off their own back, without being asked), the 200 scientists quoted here, should be given praise and OBEs.

Final point, I’ve seen it suggested ICL didn’t “recommend” lockdown. That’s irrelevant for 2 reasons: (1) any politician seeing results of 250k shouldve balked and even measures modelled were not implemented; (2) we now know there was another model which did and govt ignored that