I absolutely get the need for ambitious, galvanising language but describing rolling out a mass testing programme as “Operation Moonshot” makes me really, very uncomfortable https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-operation-moon-shot-pursue-putin-keir-the-bolshevik-bruiser/ #responsibleinnovation

Also, from the - admittedly scant - detail in the Politico newsletter, it sounds like this “Operation Moonshot” is already deviating from the best practice set out in the PM’s Council for Science and Tech letter outlining principles for moonshots https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896786/20200625CSTLetteronMoon-shotsPrinciples.pdf

Moonshots are inherently risky and heroic. Betting recovery on a moonshot is too fragile and too flimsy - surely the hope of a widely available vaccine in a year or 2 is a moonshot in and of itself? Be good to get some practical mitigations in place too, to manage the near term.

If this is all we’ve got then this is really not good enough. The UK needs lots of small certainties: projects that work, infrastructure, resilience, incremental gains against uncertainty, not a load of big sexy bets that can be admired from the panopticon.

Reading that has honestly made me feel a bit sick with anxiety.

Also, it will be interesting (I say, euphemistically) to know to what extent the desire to have good graphs on the Dom’s data viz will determine the nature of projects.