The @CommonsSTC has (incredibly impressively) released a report today on the "use of science advice" in the Covid-19 pandemic ... This thread offers some comments on the report @EScAPE_Covid19
Important to understand the novelty -- not just the disease - but also of the related science advisory mechanisms
Prior to Covid-19, SAGE - the UK top line science advisory mechanism in the UK -- has only been activated 8 times in total & 3 times for a public health emergency
Prior to Covid-19, SAGE - the UK top line science advisory mechanism in the UK -- has only been activated 8 times in total & 3 times for a public health emergency
In the UK, as in most places, science advisory mechanisms were being designed and implemented as they were being relied on, example of Joint Biosecurity Centre below
This makes it difficult to secure robust, legitimate, trusted advice, to put it mildly
This makes it difficult to secure robust, legitimate, trusted advice, to put it mildly
A useful & idealized graphic of UK science advice in the pandemic reveals two things missing
SAGE --> Cabinet & Prime Minister (of course this happened, not least via media)
Decision makers--> SAGE, GCSA, CMO (otherwise how do the experts know what advice is needed)


As the pandemic evolved so too did structures of science advice (note these figs adapted from @instituteforgov)
But, reality is even more complicated & missing is "shadow" science advice (eg, @IndependentSage) & official advisors advocating on their own (eg, via media)
But, reality is even more complicated & missing is "shadow" science advice (eg, @IndependentSage) & official advisors advocating on their own (eg, via media)