New Times,
New Thinking.

  1. Long reads
7 June 2020updated 10 Jun 2020 5:10pm

Where the science went wrong

Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic.  

By Lawrence Freedman

On Tuesday, 10 March 2020 the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), which advises the government on how best to respond to Covid-19, observed that there might be as many as 5,000 to 10,000 cases in the UK. It was time to consider measures to protect the elderly and vulnerable. There was, however, no need to panic. The UK was still four to five weeks behind Italy on the epidemic curve, and with timely interventions that could be pushed back by a couple of weeks. But firmer estimates of infection rates were needed. Because of the growing number of cases these were now possible and would be available the following week.

Sage did not wait another week. It convened again three days later. Professor Neil Ferguson’s team of epidemiologists from Imperial College London had the new estimates. The UK was further along the epidemic curve than assumed. The sudden change in the picture was put down to a five-seven day “lag in data provision for modelling”. The advice now was that measures to isolate the elderly and vulnerable should be “implemented soon, provided [it] can be done well and equitably”. Those “who may want to distance themselves” should be given advice on how to do so. Because these measures might not be sufficient “more intensive actions” needed to be considered to “enable the NHS to cope”.

Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month
Content from our partners
Wayne Robertson: "The science is clear on the need for carbon capture"
An old Rioja, a simple Claret,and a Burgundy far too nice to put in risotto
Antimicrobial Resistance: Why urgent action is needed