May’s point and Johnson’s response actually goes to a serious issue.

The science advice sits alongside economic, social and other forms of evidence/ advice. But they are provided through less formal forums.

Sage is very visible. Other advice mechanisms are not. https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1316084903990173701

What would it take for govt to start publishing its economic evidence/ advice that counterbalances the science/ public health advice in similar fashion to Sage approach? Should it do same for social research on wider impacts of restrictions and covid generally?

It won’t, because the manner of receiving that advice is different from how Sage works.

But the point is that ‘science’ is delivered (or revealed to public) in a different way than other evidence/ advice.

Or put it another way... when might we see HMT’s chief economist up in front of a presser alongside Whitty? (Whitty was, weirdly, himself raising economic arguments in yesterday’s press conference)

It doesn’t make sense to combine all the other disciplines in Sage because that is about a science advisory function. The scientists want it to stay as such.

But May’s comment shows confusion that has arisen of people seeing it as ‘the body that advises govt what to do’.