Martha, thanks for replying and acknowledging the opposition to the notion of 'behavioural fatigue'. But you don't realise how this undermines your wholesale rejection of behavioural science, nor how your position is based on a series of confusions. Let's look at these. https://twitter.com/Martha_Gill/status/1275145940740050945

First you are confused about the notion of 'behavioural fatigue'. There is good evidence that compliance with restrictions in pandemics reduces over time. However that is usually due to either poor information about risks or economic and other practical problems.

Many of us pointed that out in order to argue for greater clarity and greater support for people during the restrictions. At the same time, we vigorously opposed the notion of fatigue as rooted in psychological frailty or its use to argue against restrictions.

Second, you confuse 'behavioural fatigue' with 'nudge'. They are somewhat different things and they came from different places. 'Nudge' is clearly identified with the No. 10 Behavioural Insights Team - a private company which advises government. Behavioural fatigue did not.

Third, you confuse 'nudge' with behavioural science. On the one hand 'nudge' is mainly associated with one specific field - that of behavioural economics. It has very little traction in other disciplines and indeed there is a large literature critiquing it.

Indeed, you base your entire critique on the Behavioural Insights Team missing the point that they are more the exception than the rule. when you say that 'some' people disagreed with behavioural fatigue and 'nudge' that rather misses the point that it is the vast majority.

And on top of this, the independent behavioural scientists advising SAGE were using the evidence base to argue many of the things you argue for - that people are resilient, that they can cope with tough times if given adequate information and adequate support.

None of this would matter if your argument was that one small and atypical behavioural science perspective has gained a stranglehold over government, that some of the advice has been problematic and that this is deeply unhealthy. Indeed that would be fair comment.

Many of us have made similar arguments. Here is an example: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/two-psychologies-and-coronavirus
But the problem is that you use turn the exception into the rule and attack behavioural science in general, warning the government against taking any behavioural science advice.

This is explicit in your headline and in your second sentence: "Amongst the biggest mistakes ministers have made in the coronavirus crisis has been to listen to behavioural scientists". Not 'certain behavioural scientists'. Not 'nudge theorists'. Behavioural scientists.

And the reason why this is so problematic is that, in actually fact, the Government desparately needs guidance on behavioural science, that they have got things disastrously wrong and that they should have listened more to their independent behavioural science advisors.

Everything we can do to contain the pandemic - from washing your hands to getting tested to self isolating - has a behavioural dimension. So how do we get the public on board with these things? How do we create a sense of community and mutual responsibility? How do we gain trust?

These aren't arcane academic discussions any more. They are matters of life and death. And there are clear evidence based suggestions on how to address them. By arguing that they should be ignored, you undermine the efforts against the pandemic.

In conclusion, beneath all the confusions, there is an important point here. Is one view of human behaviour overly dominating in No. 10 and has it led to bad decisions? Is thee a need to broaden the input and give more weight to other views?

That is a big question. An importanrt question. A question of relevance way beyond this pandemic. And if that were your question then I would agree with you since that is precisely the question I have been asking myself.

But sadly, with all the inaccuracies, confusions, misunderstandings and overstatements, you turn a good question into a very dangerous argument against behavioural science in general at a time when we need good behavioural science more than ever before.

finally some resources on the debate between nudge and other approaches.
(a) chapter 5 in our free book on the psychology of the pandemic: https://www.socialsciencespace.com/wp-content/uploads/Together-Apart-Complete-ms.pdf
(b) paper by Frank Mols: https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12073?casa_token=IP6a5YvQwJoAAAAA:sEl-ND8oPLy8t9Dy63I28LdkGhRSt7OheLlutIZxCnId_0SzkH0bEy0eQJw7FQj-wlDtR3FM6oQBw6Wk
(c) a discussion with Cass Sunstein: