The difference between SAGE's approach to the March lockdown and now is striking. Quick thread:

In March, SAGE was pretty hesitant. Data was poor, there was lots of uncertainty about adherence and how long measures could be sustained, SAGE struggled to model impact of specific measures. See https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/decision-making-crisis.pdf

It called for “more intensive actions” 10 days before & additional social distancing measures “as soon as possible” 7 days before. But it struggled to make argument for lockdown until it had clear evidence of risk of hospitals being overwhelmed.

Contrast with now, based on much more data and experience: SAGE not only made the clear call on 21 Sept for circuit breaker but also argued that current approach won’t work. Now further modelling today.

The timing of publication of the minutes is interesting (they are supposed to be published 2 weeks after meetings, but a lot have not been and some withheld altogether). SAGE clearly wants this debate to happen urgently and publicly.

First time around, the daily press conferences had just started (16 March) but we did not have transparency about scientists' advice to government.

A lot has been made of SAGE lacking economic/business expertise (see T May question last night). This is true enough – SAGE themselves nod to separate advice process.

But the scientist clearly align themselves w/ view that delay will be worse for public health *and* the economy. If other advice suggests this is wrong, surely pressure to now make to make that clear...