1/ "The release of the scientists' views caused a furore. Until then, it had not been known how strongly the government's scientific advisors has lobbied for a lockdown in September. The next day Labour backed the scientists & called for a shutdown." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48-hours-in-september-when-ministers-and-scientists-split-over-covid-lockdown-vg5xbpsfx

2/ It's a shame this article is behind a paywall, as it highlights critical moments in political #SARSCoV2 decision-making in the UK, & the impact of the false dichotomy that one can either save the economy or lives - rather than that reducing cases does both.

3/ As we've seen time & again in this pandemic, prioritizing actions based on the economy instead of impact on transmission has a tendency to come back to bite: 'back to normal' "now" is so often paid for with hospitalizations, deaths, & more severe restrictions later.

4/ Waiting is also not the answer. Without action, growing cases continue growing. If your skateboard starts accelerating down a hill towards a brick wall, jumping off quick is going to hurt - but it certainly doesn't get less painful the longer you wait. Same with #SARSCoV2.

5/ 'Easy actions' don't necessarily help either. Too often we've seen govts implement rules that avoid the wrath of powerful lobbies, restrict freedoms, & likely have little impact on transmission. 'Restriction theatre' confuses messages & perception about what actions are risky.

6/ 'Restriction theatre' is a bit like dragging your hand on the ground to slow your speeding skateboard, halfway down the hill: It won't work, & now you've also seriously messed up your hand. You've also possibly misled people to believing this is a safe & effective thing to do.

7/ Finally, it's critical to recognise how & by whom government policy is being shaped. In the UK, SAGE & SPI-M (government advice groups) were not always consulted on the measures taken - sometimes they went directly against what they'd advised.

8/ Other times, being 'led by the science' meant meeting with a select group who offered advice that already aligned with govt plans & strategy, rather than a wider consensus. There was no signal to the public that decisions being made weren't backed by SAGE/SPI-M-at-large.

9/ A separate press conference by two chief scientific advisers, & SAGE minutes released ahead of schedule helped shape an important point in the public view: government actions were against prevailing advice, & scientists were deeply concerned.

10/ Scientists can only advise, & it is indeed the weighty burden of politicians to decide how & when to take that advice. It is well within their right to reject it entirely.

But honesty & ownership is needed on both sides: what advice was given, & what govt decision was made.

11/ It is harmful to science /and/ the public for this not to be transparent: trust & blame can be misplaced with long-term consequences. Govts will always claim to be following the science, but the public deserves to fully understand what that means: what science? by whom?

12/ In many ways, all of the above are lessons the UK - & many other countries - are still learning:
- Preserve the economy by reducing cases
- Waiting won't help
- 'Restriction theatre' won't either
- Draw clear lines between science advice given & govt decisions made

13/ It's never too late to take these onboard & embed them in our responses. We still face a long, tough winter ahead with #SARSCoV2 #COVID19.

We can make this easier for everyone & save #LivesAndLivelihoods by the actions we take today. Let's get cases down, so we're all safer.