RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:And just to follow up on my last post, SAGE is reporting into COBRA for the management of this crisis and there are scientific experts drafted into the latter committee because of the nature of this crisis. Whilst the final decision making is political, there is plenty of scientific advice provided.

I think the issue is that if government policy is to”be led by the science” there should not be a political adviser contributing to sage. By all means take the scientific advice from sage and make political decisions based on (including ignoring) that advice, but don’t try and inject the policy into the advice in the first place.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And just to follow up on my last post, SAGE is reporting into COBRA for the management of this crisis and there are scientific experts drafted into the latter committee because of the nature of this crisis. Whilst the final decision making is political, there is plenty of scientific advice provided.

I think the issue is that if government policy is to”be led by the science” there should not be a political adviser contributing to sage. By all means take the scientific advice from sage and make political decisions based on (including ignoring) that advice, but don’t try and inject the policy into the advice in the first place.

But just being present doesn't mean that's what they are doing or even trying to do. I think they probably were there to listen to the arguments. The problem is that the reporting of the arguments by them to government, or at least the PM, may then have been slanted by their political aims. And unfortunately we have people in charge who are more likely to listen to them than scientific mainstream.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I believe the minutes are published. I’ve read some, somewhere, and I’m sure it was SAGE.

If you look on the govt website, all is revealed . Though I think they publish minute some time after the event (s). There will be things that they likely don't want published- for example, the no lockdown scenario of 500k ++ deaths. I keep hearing things like we should trust the public ( e.g.not to panic) but I'm not sure trusting the general public to behave sensibly has had much success in recent years!

Some discussions need to be in private. You can’t have an honest debate if every word will be in the media the day afterwards.

Much of Cabinet Office work is 'protected' under legal provisions for policy making and will not be discoverable under Freedom of Information legislation. This allows elected ministers to make decisions on the basis advice from un-elected experts without their every deliberation being chewed over by the media, either live or with the arrogance of hindsight. I am not sure if SAGE will be afforded the same protections as COBRA, but frankly people are having to make impossibly difficult decisions under conditions in which there is no or precious little information, no precedent to provide a handrail and like everyone else, they're having to do it with staff who are under the same pressures of anxiety and social distancing as everyone else.

The media, on the other hand, have shown a contemptible willingness to take cheap shots. To be fair, they have feck all else to do at the moment and they need to justify their existence. However, in my view, the media have played a major part in the gradual erosion of the country's confidence in the government and its endurance. Their questioning of the government's delay in publishing plans for coming out of lock-down - I watched one briefing last week in which every one of 6 or 7 journalists appeared to ask the same f*cking question - have undoubtedly contributed to an erosion of public willingness to abide by the stay at home rule and to maintain social distancing when people are out.

This cabinet, like all cabinets, is full of abysmal shits. But the fecking media out-shit them every day of the week.

Now, which of yous ballixes has been drinking all the hand sanitiser?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And just to follow up on my last post, SAGE is reporting into COBRA for the management of this crisis and there are scientific experts drafted into the latter committee because of the nature of this crisis. Whilst the final decision making is political, there is plenty of scientific advice provided.

I think the issue is that if government policy is to”be led by the science” there should not be a political adviser contributing to sage. By all means take the scientific advice from sage and make political decisions based on (including ignoring) that advice, but don’t try and inject the policy into the advice in the first place.

But just being present doesn't mean that's what they are doing or even trying to do. I think they probably were there to listen to the arguments. The problem is that the reporting of the arguments by them to government, or at least the PM, may then have been slanted by their political aims. And unfortunately we have people in charge who are more likely to listen to them than scientific mainstream.

That would be fair enough if the person just listening to the arguments had relevant skills. Cummings’ history degree is not what is required in this setting, so I can only assume he is there for another reason.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: Their questioning of the government's delay in publishing plans for coming out of lock-down - I watched one briefing last week in which every one of 6 or 7 journalists appeared to ask the same f*cking question

Many of them will want that question carried in the news broadcast and none of them will love the idea of showing a competitor asking the question and so ask their own. The politicians might rightly not like that but maybe they could check in on which geniuses allowed the explosion of the media markets

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
That’s kind of my point.

We should certainly be happy to criticise the WHO for being a mouthpiece of China, though I guess the WHO is no more corrupt than many other bodies. Hopefully both China and the WHO actually take some action around live animal markets moving forward

Why? Is it any more likely to cause pandemics than any animal husbandry? Swine flu and Bird flu came from common or garden husbandry didn't they?

It's on the worse end of practices, though we've plenty of high risk practices in the west too. Luckily here we'll be enjoying Brexit and thus getting newer and better standards, and in no way will we copy the much riskier models of the USA where practices are much worse and in no way will we copy the USA where (like China) it's a crime to talk about the shite animal husbandry standards.

It'll be interesting to see if this comes up for debate post pandemic and how it works out in practice given that and the greatness that is Brexit. I'd contend we should still be able to eat meat but with a real focus on quality products, that f course means meat would be much more expensive, but the world would be a better place for producing less meat/dairy and we'd be healthier for eating less.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: If you look on the govt website, all is revealed . Though I think they publish minute some time after the event (s). There will be things that they likely don't want published- for example, the no lockdown scenario of 500k ++ deaths. I keep hearing things like we should trust the public ( e.g.not to panic) but I'm not sure trusting the general public to behave sensibly has had much success in recent years!

Some discussions need to be in private. You can’t have an honest debate if every word will be in the media the day afterwards.

Much of Cabinet Office work is 'protected' under legal provisions for policy making and will not be discoverable under Freedom of Information legislation. This allows elected ministers to make decisions on the basis advice from un-elected experts without their every deliberation being chewed over by the media, either live or with the arrogance of hindsight. I am not sure if SAGE will be afforded the same protections as COBRA, but frankly people are having to make impossibly difficult decisions under conditions in which there is no or precious little information, no precedent to provide a handrail and like everyone else, they're having to do it with staff who are under the same pressures of anxiety and social distancing as everyone else.

The media, on the other hand, have shown a contemptible willingness to take cheap shots. To be fair, they have feck all else to do at the moment and they need to justify their existence. However, in my view, the media have played a major part in the gradual erosion of the country's confidence in the government and its endurance. Their questioning of the government's delay in publishing plans for coming out of lock-down - I watched one briefing last week in which every one of 6 or 7 journalists appeared to ask the same f*cking question - have undoubtedly contributed to an erosion of public willingness to abide by the stay at home rule and to maintain social distancing when people are out.

This cabinet, like all cabinets, is full of abysmal shits. But the fecking media out-shit them every day of the week.

Now, which of yous ballixes has been drinking all the hand sanitiser?

And whose fault is that?

We should perhaps be a little more precise than just saying the media, whereas Piers Morgan is not only alarming in the quality of his media work but in his existence as a human I find nothing alarming about Martha Kearney

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
We should certainly be happy to criticise the WHO for being a mouthpiece of China, though I guess the WHO is no more corrupt than many other bodies. Hopefully both China and the WHO actually take some action around live animal markets moving forward

Why? Is it any more likely to cause pandemics than any animal husbandry? Swine flu and Bird flu came from common or garden husbandry didn't they?

It's on the worse end of practices, though we've plenty of high risk practices in the west too. Luckily here we'll be enjoying Brexit and thus getting newer and better standards, and in no way will we copy the much riskier models of the USA where practices are much worse and in no way will we copy the USA where (like China) it's a crime to talk about the shite animal husbandry standards.

It'll be interesting to see if this comes up for debate post pandemic and how it works out in practice given that and the greatness that is Brexit. I'd contend we should still be able to eat meat but with a real focus on quality products, that f course means meat would be much more expensive, but the world would be a better place for producing less meat/dairy and we'd be healthier for eating less.

When a practice from Europe causes a pandemic that shuts the world down, I suspect there will be a good case to review what we do and stop. This originated in China and China must ensure that if the outbreak was caused by something humans were doing, that it doesn’t happen again. That expectation isn’t unreasonable.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And just to follow up on my last post, SAGE is reporting into COBRA for the management of this crisis and there are scientific experts drafted into the latter committee because of the nature of this crisis. Whilst the final decision making is political, there is plenty of scientific advice provided.

I think the issue is that if government policy is to”be led by the science” there should not be a political adviser contributing to sage. By all means take the scientific advice from sage and make political decisions based on (including ignoring) that advice, but don’t try and inject the policy into the advice in the first place.

Contributing or listening and understanding the arguments? Lots of supposition turned into a story. Reality is that SpAds sit on a lot of committees where they have little experience of their own. They are the ministers eyes and ears. It’s standard practice.

Stom wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
This cabinet, like all cabinets, is full of abysmal shits. But the fecking media out-shit them every day of the week.

Now, which of yous ballixes has been drinking all the hand sanitiser?

And whose fault is that?

Trev McDonald?

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Why? Is it any more likely to cause pandemics than any animal husbandry? Swine flu and Bird flu came from common or garden husbandry didn't they?

It's on the worse end of practices, though we've plenty of high risk practices in the west too. Luckily here we'll be enjoying Brexit and thus getting newer and better standards, and in no way will we copy the much riskier models of the USA where practices are much worse and in no way will we copy the USA where (like China) it's a crime to talk about the shite animal husbandry standards.

It'll be interesting to see if this comes up for debate post pandemic and how it works out in practice given that and the greatness that is Brexit. I'd contend we should still be able to eat meat but with a real focus on quality products, that f course means meat would be much more expensive, but the world would be a better place for producing less meat/dairy and we'd be healthier for eating less.

When a practice from Europe causes a pandemic that shuts the world down, I suspect there will be a good case to review what we do and stop. This originated in China and China must ensure that if the outbreak was caused by something humans were doing, that it doesn’t happen again. That expectation isn’t unreasonable.

We've only just had another outbreak of bird flu in the USA, what we're doing is causing problems. Probably they've managed too catch the bird flu and kill off enough numbers they'll avoid a spread, but the stocking densities, abuse of antibiotics and slaughter methods leave a lot to chance, and if we're not going to be serious about safety it's harder to ask for change from others.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Stom wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
This cabinet, like all cabinets, is full of abysmal shits. But the fecking media out-shit them every day of the week.

Now, which of yous ballixes has been drinking all the hand sanitiser?

And whose fault is that?

Trev McDonald?

24 hour news has a lot to answer for. The pressure is to get a saleable headline not so deep investigation. And nothing sells better than a sense of crisis and imminent doom (other than a good old fashioned NOTW sex scandal).

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's on the worse end of practices, though we've plenty of high risk practices in the west too. Luckily here we'll be enjoying Brexit and thus getting newer and better standards, and in no way will we copy the much riskier models of the USA where practices are much worse and in no way will we copy the USA where (like China) it's a crime to talk about the shite animal husbandry standards.

It'll be interesting to see if this comes up for debate post pandemic and how it works out in practice given that and the greatness that is Brexit. I'd contend we should still be able to eat meat but with a real focus on quality products, that f course means meat would be much more expensive, but the world would be a better place for producing less meat/dairy and we'd be healthier for eating less.

When a practice from Europe causes a pandemic that shuts the world down, I suspect there will be a good case to review what we do and stop. This originated in China and China must ensure that if the outbreak was caused by something humans were doing, that it doesn’t happen again. That expectation isn’t unreasonable.

We've only just had another outbreak of bird flu in the USA, what we're doing is causing problems. Probably they've managed too catch the bird flu and kill off enough numbers they'll avoid a spread, but the stocking densities, abuse of antibiotics and slaughter methods leave a lot to chance, and if we're not going to be serious about safety it's harder to ask for change from others.

It’s a fair point but e disruption this has caused deserves for the root cause to be sorted out. If the wet markets were to blame, then surely a matter of time before this happens again? To do nothing is borderline criminal.

And if we need to look at our practices then fine but in this case this isn’t a problem we’ve caused (unless you believe the horseshit about visiting American sports teams).

Very interesting interview with the chief geek:

https://unherd.com/thepost/imperials-pr ... -critique/

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
When a practice from Europe causes a pandemic that shuts the world down, I suspect there will be a good case to review what we do and stop. This originated in China and China must ensure that if the outbreak was caused by something humans were doing, that it doesn’t happen again. That expectation isn’t unreasonable.

We've only just had another outbreak of bird flu in the USA, what we're doing is causing problems. Probably they've managed too catch the bird flu and kill off enough numbers they'll avoid a spread, but the stocking densities, abuse of antibiotics and slaughter methods leave a lot to chance, and if we're not going to be serious about safety it's harder to ask for change from others.

It’s a fair point but e disruption this has caused deserves for the root cause to be sorted out. If the wet markets were to blame, then surely a matter of time before this happens again? To do nothing is borderline criminal.

And if we need to look at our practices then fine but in this case this isn’t a problem we’ve caused (unless you believe the horseshit about visiting American sports teams).

I don't know what American sports teams are supposed to have done, but I'm willing in advance to believe their sports responsible for much of the suffering in this world. And I agree the wet markets should be cleaned up because they represent bad practice, but Eugene didn't raise an unreasonable point that there are risks in husbandry period, and we certainly run with a higher risk profile than I think a good idea.

But people like cheap food, people like McDonalds (other crap food is available), people vote for Trump and Brexit, people like cheap clothes, people like slave labour providing they can easily ignore their cheap products rely on that and screwing over the producers. And my guess would be those styles of thinking inform our future practices much more than my thoughts we should drive much higher standards in food and other industries, pay far greater heed to the environment, pay much higher taxes and live in more egalitarian societies

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
We've only just had another outbreak of bird flu in the USA, what we're doing is causing problems. Probably they've managed too catch the bird flu and kill off enough numbers they'll avoid a spread, but the stocking densities, abuse of antibiotics and slaughter methods leave a lot to chance, and if we're not going to be serious about safety it's harder to ask for change from others.

It’s a fair point but e disruption this has caused deserves for the root cause to be sorted out. If the wet markets were to blame, then surely a matter of time before this happens again? To do nothing is borderline criminal.

And if we need to look at our practices then fine but in this case this isn’t a problem we’ve caused (unless you believe the horseshit about visiting American sports teams).

I don't know what American sports teams are supposed to have done, but I'm willing in advance to believe their sports responsible for much of the suffering in this world. And I agree the wet markets should be cleaned up because they represent bad practice, but Eugene didn't raise an unreasonable point that there are risks in husbandry period, and we certainly run with a higher risk profile than I think a good idea.

But people like cheap food, people like McDonalds (other crap food is available), people vote for Trump and Brexit, people like cheap clothes, people like slave labour providing they can easily ignore their cheap products rely on that and screwing over the producers. And my guess would be those styles of thinking inform our future practices much more than my thoughts we should drive much higher standards in food and other industries, pay far greater heed to the environment, pay much higher taxes and live in more egalitarian societies

I’m not disagreeing with you or Eugene. We should take a look at how we operate although we probably won’t for the reasons you point out below. However if we had caused a global pandemic I would be demanding that our practices change urgently.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
We should certainly be happy to criticise the WHO for being a mouthpiece of China, though I guess the WHO is no more corrupt than many other bodies. Hopefully both China and the WHO actually take some action around live animal markets moving forward

Why? Is it any more likely to cause pandemics than any animal husbandry? Swine flu and Bird flu came from common or garden husbandry didn't they?

It's on the worse end of practices, though we've plenty of high risk practices in the west too. Luckily here we'll be enjoying Brexit and thus getting newer and better standards, and in no way will we copy the much riskier models of the USA where practices are much worse and in no way will we copy the USA where (like China) it's a crime to talk about the shite animal husbandry standards.

It'll be interesting to see if this comes up for debate post pandemic and how it works out in practice given that and the greatness that is Brexit. I'd contend we should still be able to eat meat but with a real focus on quality products, that f course means meat would be much more expensive, but the world would be a better place for producing less meat/dairy and we'd be healthier for eating less.

I think the Chinese could quite reasonably note that antibiotic resistance is a far bigger challenge to human health than viruses mutating in live animal markets and enquire if the US plans to bar their farmers from mass antibiotic-dosing their livestock.

Both should be looked at btw, but I'm not sure there's much moral high ground for anyone.

Puja

Our abuse of antibiotics isn't as bad as it is in places like India and China. Although one might care to look at who's producing and supplying the vast quantities that are being used without need, and without adequate training and understanding of what they do. Many Western agri firms have all the moral standing of the tobacco industry (though it's not only us now China, Brail, India et al are coming to join the party)

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
When a practice from Europe causes a pandemic that shuts the world down, I suspect there will be a good case to review what we do and stop. This originated in China and China must ensure that if the outbreak was caused by something humans were doing, that it doesn’t happen again. That expectation isn’t unreasonable.

We've only just had another outbreak of bird flu in the USA, what we're doing is causing problems. Probably they've managed too catch the bird flu and kill off enough numbers they'll avoid a spread, but the stocking densities, abuse of antibiotics and slaughter methods leave a lot to chance, and if we're not going to be serious about safety it's harder to ask for change from others.

It’s a fair point but e disruption this has caused deserves for the root cause to be sorted out. If the wet markets were to blame, then surely a matter of time before this happens again? To do nothing is borderline criminal.

And if we need to look at our practices then fine but in this case this isn’t a problem we’ve caused (unless you believe the horseshit about visiting American sports teams).

Absolutely, the root cause needs to be found and either radically redesigned or stopped completely. And this needs to be done wherever in the world it occurs. While we're at it (while there is the political will), risk analysis needs to be done on all other possible pandemic sources and the same treatment be handed out to other risky practices, or any practices capable of causing death on this scale - including antibiotic misuses.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I think the issue is that if government policy is to”be led by the science” there should not be a political adviser contributing to sage. By all means take the scientific advice from sage and make political decisions based on (including ignoring) that advice, but don’t try and inject the policy into the advice in the first place.

But just being present doesn't mean that's what they are doing or even trying to do. I think they probably were there to listen to the arguments. The problem is that the reporting of the arguments by them to government, or at least the PM, may then have been slanted by their political aims. And unfortunately we have people in charge who are more likely to listen to them than scientific mainstream.

That would be fair enough if the person just listening to the arguments had relevant skills. Cummings’ history degree is not what is required in this setting, so I can only assume he is there for another reason.

Sage is there to provide the best scientific and technical advice to the government.

Non-technical people who want to be involved will, at best, only slow such discussions down.
People with a political agenda should not be in Sage meetings as the purpose is to gather scientific advice. Political views become involved at COBRA.
Dominic Cummings is particularly problematic at such a meeting, since he is one of the most politically powerful people in the UK at the moment. He is clearly more senior (in terms of political power) than anyone else present at Sage, which creates problems for its ability to come to completely independent decisions. Even if Cummings is genuinely standing back and not trying to influence things, how can the scientists truly speak freely with him there? Imagine if they want to express a view such as "the current level of testing and contact tracing is weeks behind where it should be" - would they really express it in the same terms with Cummings there? When they know that he has the PM's ear, and that could mean the end of any scientist's career as advisor to government should Cummings be displeased with them?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
But just being present doesn't mean that's what they are doing or even trying to do. I think they probably were there to listen to the arguments. The problem is that the reporting of the arguments by them to government, or at least the PM, may then have been slanted by their political aims. And unfortunately we have people in charge who are more likely to listen to them than scientific mainstream.

That would be fair enough if the person just listening to the arguments had relevant skills. Cummings’ history degree is not what is required in this setting, so I can only assume he is there for another reason.

Sage is there to provide the best scientific and technical advice to the government.

Non-technical people who want to be involved will, at best, only slow such discussions down.
People with a political agenda should not be in Sage meetings as the purpose is to gather scientific advice. Political views become involved at COBRA.
Dominic Cummings is particularly problematic at such a meeting, since he is one of the most politically powerful people in the UK at the moment. He is clearly more senior (in terms of political power) than anyone else present at Sage, which creates problems for its ability to come to completely independent decisions. Even if Cummings is genuinely standing back and not trying to influence things, how can the scientists truly speak freely with him there? Imagine if they want to express a view such as "the current level of testing and contact tracing is weeks behind where it should be" - would they really express it in the same terms with Cummings there? When they know that he has the PM's ear, and that could mean the end of any scientist's career as advisor to government should Cummings be displeased with them?

Except as you have alluded to (see COBRA), they don't make decisions. They provide advice.
Role
SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy.

There is a better question to ask with respect to the relationship between government and 'the' science though.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

canta_brian wrote: That would be fair enough if the person just listening to the arguments had relevant skills. Cummings’ history degree is not what is required in this setting, so I can only assume he is there for another reason.

Sage is there to provide the best scientific and technical advice to the government.

Non-technical people who want to be involved will, at best, only slow such discussions down.
People with a political agenda should not be in Sage meetings as the purpose is to gather scientific advice. Political views become involved at COBRA.
Dominic Cummings is particularly problematic at such a meeting, since he is one of the most politically powerful people in the UK at the moment. He is clearly more senior (in terms of political power) than anyone else present at Sage, which creates problems for its ability to come to completely independent decisions. Even if Cummings is genuinely standing back and not trying to influence things, how can the scientists truly speak freely with him there? Imagine if they want to express a view such as "the current level of testing and contact tracing is weeks behind where it should be" - would they really express it in the same terms with Cummings there? When they know that he has the PM's ear, and that could mean the end of any scientist's career as advisor to government should Cummings be displeased with them?

Except as you have alluded to (see COBRA), they don't make decisions. They provide advice.
Role
SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy.

I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sage is there to provide the best scientific and technical advice to the government.

Non-technical people who want to be involved will, at best, only slow such discussions down.
People with a political agenda should not be in Sage meetings as the purpose is to gather scientific advice. Political views become involved at COBRA.
Dominic Cummings is particularly problematic at such a meeting, since he is one of the most politically powerful people in the UK at the moment. He is clearly more senior (in terms of political power) than anyone else present at Sage, which creates problems for its ability to come to completely independent decisions. Even if Cummings is genuinely standing back and not trying to influence things, how can the scientists truly speak freely with him there? Imagine if they want to express a view such as "the current level of testing and contact tracing is weeks behind where it should be" - would they really express it in the same terms with Cummings there? When they know that he has the PM's ear, and that could mean the end of any scientist's career as advisor to government should Cummings be displeased with them?

Except as you have alluded to (see COBRA), they don't make decisions. They provide advice.
Role
SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy.

I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Except as you have alluded to (see COBRA), they don't make decisions. They provide advice.
Role
SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy.

I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

For me the problem is two fold.
1: The government claims to be following the science whilst also putting someone on the committee that writes the science either influences it, or appears to influence it.
2: the committee reports to government. At this point Cummings, with his history degree, will sit in. I don’t believe for one second that his having sat through the whole process will enable him to enlighten the government on the science in a manner the scientists can’t.