Not listening to the behavioural scientists on SAGE and elsewere, led to the government acting too late, to undermining community and to sowing mistrust
Could I suggest that Gov laid their characters on the public at large, particularly incensed at the word 'gaming' boy did they game every penny out of the system.
It's complete rubbish though, SAGE were firmly against lockdown prior to the 23rd March 2020. Read the minutes and look at the media interviews they did. (Sept 2020 and onwards is a completely different matter, SAGE had learnt their lesson by then.)
what is coming out of the Inquiry is that that is not the case. And the behavioural subgroup were always cleat that "behavioural fatigue" was not a valid reason to delay
Sorry but I believe what I saw and read at the time, backed up by the minutes published a few weeks later, over the partial and misleading accounts that scientists involved are giving now several years later to excuse and cover-up their mistakes. I'm not debating "behavioural fatigue" but the advice SAGE gave regarding lockdowns which was clear, unambiguous, and bad prior to March 23.
Having kept an eye on James' argument on this point for a few years, I must say he does seem to be right. At the Inquiry last week John Edmunds said it would have been possible, following the SAGE meeting of 13 March, to have called for Lockdown based on the evidence known at that point, ie it would have been an evidence based decision (see around 4hours 29 minutes into the Youtube video of that day at the Inquiry). But we know from the debate Edmunds himself had with Thomas Pueyo on Channel 4 that vey evening (March 13 2020) that he personally wasn't calling for this at that point in time. We also know, as James points out, that the SAGE minutes do not recommend immediate and drastic action. We also know that the official view at that moment in time was that the doubling time was 5-6 days without restrictions (repeated in the Prime Minister's address to the nation on the evening of 16 March), since revised down. A final piece: the following thread looks at emails submitted as evidence to the Inquiry. It does seem to show that SAGE members were in line with the policy Johnson announced to the nation on 16 March, which was a significant tightening of restrictions, but not lockdown:
So the health & tech parliamentary committee already looked at the timing of this in detail.
There is no doubt that a concept of behavioural fatigue stopped govt (and prob the non behavioural people on SAGE) from seriously considering a lockdown for a considerable number of weeks (pt 81).
The committee is clear though that on the 16th March (a week before lockdown, and when thousands of lives could still have been saved), SAGE did change its advice to more restrictive measures (pt 92).
Whether SAGE would have changed its advice earlier had there not been this idea of behavioural fatigue, I have no idea. Certainly, I agree that their mistake about the doubling time also played a crucial part.
James may not want to keep pressing this as he has gone over it a few times. But in essence he challenges the narrative put forward at the Health and Tech Committee. For example, the claim in Point 92 that SAGE changed its advice at the March 13 meeting based on a realisation the doubling time was more like three days. James says, correctly I think, that this is simply not borne out in the minutes nor is it reflected in the Prime Minister's Speech of 16 March.
Yes, around 13/14/15 March SAGE did realise something was profoundly amis and plans for tightening were put in place, announced on 16 March by the PM. But these policies were not lockdown and there were not public calls for lockdown by SAGE at this point. Indeed, in public, and memorably, John Edmunds defended the existing policy of strong mitigation and steadily acquired herd immunity ("squashing the sombrero") in the Channel 4 debate on 13 March in the face of calls for lockdown:
At the end of his contribution (23' 25" into the video) Edmunds states that the doubling time is about five days. It was on the following weekend, 21/22 March, that the fact of a shorter doubling time became the consensus.
In essence, at the Health and Tech Committee and now at the Inquiry, there seems to be a skipping over of a week's events in the collective memory of some of the scientists involved. It was a very difficult time of course, but we should endeavour to keep the timeline clear.
Ok, I;ve gone back to the original emails and minutes and I think you're right. So I've added a sentence to the substack on it, just before Steve's clip.
Thank you. It is very very unfortunate that the ministers pandered to their prejudices and those of some of the media than take the advice. It was unbelievable that they thought people would follow the rules after they so publicly broke them.
This was a great deep dive this week. Thank you for making the effort to distill the main points into this informative overview. And rest in peace to the tens of thousands who died unecessarily due to this arrogant indifferent incompetence.
Could I suggest that Gov laid their characters on the public at large, particularly incensed at the word 'gaming' boy did they game every penny out of the system.
It's complete rubbish though, SAGE were firmly against lockdown prior to the 23rd March 2020. Read the minutes and look at the media interviews they did. (Sept 2020 and onwards is a completely different matter, SAGE had learnt their lesson by then.)
what is coming out of the Inquiry is that that is not the case. And the behavioural subgroup were always cleat that "behavioural fatigue" was not a valid reason to delay
Sorry but I believe what I saw and read at the time, backed up by the minutes published a few weeks later, over the partial and misleading accounts that scientists involved are giving now several years later to excuse and cover-up their mistakes. I'm not debating "behavioural fatigue" but the advice SAGE gave regarding lockdowns which was clear, unambiguous, and bad prior to March 23.
Having kept an eye on James' argument on this point for a few years, I must say he does seem to be right. At the Inquiry last week John Edmunds said it would have been possible, following the SAGE meeting of 13 March, to have called for Lockdown based on the evidence known at that point, ie it would have been an evidence based decision (see around 4hours 29 minutes into the Youtube video of that day at the Inquiry). But we know from the debate Edmunds himself had with Thomas Pueyo on Channel 4 that vey evening (March 13 2020) that he personally wasn't calling for this at that point in time. We also know, as James points out, that the SAGE minutes do not recommend immediate and drastic action. We also know that the official view at that moment in time was that the doubling time was 5-6 days without restrictions (repeated in the Prime Minister's address to the nation on the evening of 16 March), since revised down. A final piece: the following thread looks at emails submitted as evidence to the Inquiry. It does seem to show that SAGE members were in line with the policy Johnson announced to the nation on 16 March, which was a significant tightening of restrictions, but not lockdown:
https://twitter.com/jim_reed/status/1715294055381209408
So the health & tech parliamentary committee already looked at the timing of this in detail.
There is no doubt that a concept of behavioural fatigue stopped govt (and prob the non behavioural people on SAGE) from seriously considering a lockdown for a considerable number of weeks (pt 81).
The committee is clear though that on the 16th March (a week before lockdown, and when thousands of lives could still have been saved), SAGE did change its advice to more restrictive measures (pt 92).
Whether SAGE would have changed its advice earlier had there not been this idea of behavioural fatigue, I have no idea. Certainly, I agree that their mistake about the doubling time also played a crucial part.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmsctech/92/9207.htm
James may not want to keep pressing this as he has gone over it a few times. But in essence he challenges the narrative put forward at the Health and Tech Committee. For example, the claim in Point 92 that SAGE changed its advice at the March 13 meeting based on a realisation the doubling time was more like three days. James says, correctly I think, that this is simply not borne out in the minutes nor is it reflected in the Prime Minister's Speech of 16 March.
https://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2020/07/patrick-vallances-faulty-memory.html
Yes, around 13/14/15 March SAGE did realise something was profoundly amis and plans for tightening were put in place, announced on 16 March by the PM. But these policies were not lockdown and there were not public calls for lockdown by SAGE at this point. Indeed, in public, and memorably, John Edmunds defended the existing policy of strong mitigation and steadily acquired herd immunity ("squashing the sombrero") in the Channel 4 debate on 13 March in the face of calls for lockdown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C98FmoZVbjs
At the end of his contribution (23' 25" into the video) Edmunds states that the doubling time is about five days. It was on the following weekend, 21/22 March, that the fact of a shorter doubling time became the consensus.
In essence, at the Health and Tech Committee and now at the Inquiry, there seems to be a skipping over of a week's events in the collective memory of some of the scientists involved. It was a very difficult time of course, but we should endeavour to keep the timeline clear.
Ok, I;ve gone back to the original emails and minutes and I think you're right. So I've added a sentence to the substack on it, just before Steve's clip.
Thank you. It is very very unfortunate that the ministers pandered to their prejudices and those of some of the media than take the advice. It was unbelievable that they thought people would follow the rules after they so publicly broke them.
Yes, and one can see this in so many areas of life today. Not just in health.
Fascinating post - I dread to think what people will do when the next one comes.
With the politicians misbehaving in so many areas people are unlikely to listen to their advice.
This was a great deep dive this week. Thank you for making the effort to distill the main points into this informative overview. And rest in peace to the tens of thousands who died unecessarily due to this arrogant indifferent incompetence.