Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A better comparison would be a direct threat to this country rather than another. PM Theresa May chaired the COBRA meeting after the Manchester bomb.

Here is the link, she wasn't PM for this incident.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/devi ... -statement

So are we moving the goalposts now on when a PM attends a Cobra meeting?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Where is the proof?

I worded that wrongly, my bad.

Assumptions/claims being made that Gov advisors don't attend Sage meetings are incorrect.
They've attended them for years.

The claim that it was chaired by Cummings will, I suspect, come out in the wash as incorrect when the minutes are eventually released.

[tiger76]

Can the Times bring Boris down?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/joeydurso/rupe ... oronavirus

In the short-term no,but it's telling that the Times is becoming more hostile,brexit could still cause problems down the line,especially if the talks aren't going well,which they're currently not.If Labour have any sense they'll respond to the Times overtures,and try and get further sympathetic coverage,like it or not,if you want to be in power you have to play the media game in this day and age,Keir Starmer understands this,but i'm not certain some elements of the Labour Party do.

[keith1879]

But when people arrive in the country they will be subject to the same lockdown restrictions as the rest of us. So they're no more of a risk than you or I would be when returning home from the supermarket.

Can't argue with that!

[dsr]

...


A future coronavirus inquiry will need to look at when the prime minister took charge of the response

Johnson’s role in the growing crisis matters because prime ministers can play such an influential role – either politically or in pulling the government together. Tony Blair recalls the moment in the 2000 fuel protest crisis when he realised that ‘no one seemed to have much of an answer’. He convened urgent meetings with the police and with the oil companies, and then chaired COBR himself. During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001, Nick Brown, the minister for agriculture, led the UK response until Blair returned from an overseas trip and realised that ‘he had to step in.’ As Blair put it: ‘The only thing to do at a time like this is to show you are on top of it and give a general appearance of being in charge’. The big question is therefore not just what meetings Johnson chaired, but also what difference he made or could have made.

The implication being that Johnson was following precedent by not being at the first meeting, that he was following precedent by stepping in to take charge at a later meeting, and the question being what number meeting (2, 3, 4, 5 or 6) was the correct meeting when he was due to take charge.

Can we have a sweep?

[Paul Waine]

That doesn’t state when other than in the future, which is tautology to be honest, you can’t hold one in the past. The future has arrived since I started typing this sentence! We’re already able to look ‘in retrospect’ at the early handing of the crisis.

So long as we stick with "not now" and know that the future is beyond when the covid-19 pandemic is resolved that works for me.

[martin_p]

So long as we stick with "not now" and know that the future is beyond when the covid-19 pandemic is resolved that works for me.

That may be your view but you can’t ascribe it to the author of the institute for government piece like you’re trying to.

[AndrewJB]

If the scientists are as useless as you say they are, then their advice would be worthless anyway.

I haven’t said the scientists are useless, but that the government cannot claim they’re following independent scientific advice, when Cummings and another were in attendance. It’s like adding horse meat to a beef lasagna and still calling it 100% beef.

Again, why was Cummings there? His role is political - to polish the turd that is Johnson. The committee reports back to the government as a committee. So what would Cummings have been reporting back? What individual scientists were saying? Who is supportive and who isn’t of the governments political aims? Or to push the direction of the discussions in a particular direction? We don’t know, but it will not have fostered free ranging discussion. When a band writes music alone, you’ll get everyone relaxed and focused on their parts. Add groupies, or a journalist and some will clam up, and others might try to show off. The result won’t be as good. Put more crudely, try taking a satisfying dump with people watching you.

[Paul Waine]

I worded that wrongly, my bad.

Assumptions/claims being made that Gov advisors don't attend Sage meetings are incorrect.
They've attended them for years.

The claim that it was chaired by Cummings will, I suspect, come out in the wash as incorrect when the minutes are eventually released.

Report in The Times online (5pm today): Scientific advisers to be named amid Dominic Cummings controversy

Sir Patrick Vallance has promised to release the names of around 100 scientists who are guiding the government’s coronavirus response, but at the same time he defended the secrecy around the Sage group of advisors — saying it was vital that people can speak their minds.

Sir Patrick, the government’s chief scientific advisor, was speaking after some of the names on the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) were leaked, amid criticism that Boris Johnson was claiming to “follow the science” while remaining opaque about the source of that science.

Those revealed to be sitting on the committee included Brooke Rogers, a behavioural scientist, John Edmunds and Graham Medley, disease specialists, as well as Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief political advisor, The Guardian reported. The inclusion of Mr Cummings was heavily criticised over the weekend.

Sir David King, himself a former chief scientific advisor, said that he was “shocked” by Mr Cummings’s inclusion. However, speaking to reporters today both Sir Patrick and Sir Mark Walport, another former chief scientific advisor, said that it was entirely normal to have political appointees present, and that Sir David’s tenure preceded the creation of Sage.

“We also have officials from Whitehall who listen in to the meetings and can ask questions if they wish,” said Sir Patrick. “And yes, that does include people from Number 10.”

Sage is not a fixed committee. Instead, it draws on expertise relevant to the particular emergency. In the case of coronavirus, it is fed by a number of smaller committees, looking at, among other things, mathematical modelling and virology. Sir Patrick said that he intends to release the names of those on any of the committees, provided that they consent.

“The usual practice with Sage is that the names of the scientists involved are published after the emergency is over,” he said. “We were very strongly advised that that needed to be the case here for a number of reasons, including the fact that this is an issue of independence and people being influenced, but also for personal security reasons . . . but we will be publishing names of those that are happy to have their names published.” He said he that expected there to be around 100.

This may not assuage critics. Tracey Brown is director Sense About Science, a charity that campaigns for openness in data and science. “I don’t see a case for anonymity,” she said. “An unpleasant post bag is standard fare when you serve on a powerful committee. Looked at in the context of how blurred the line is between scientific advice and political responsibility, it’s hard not to conclude that this is more about government wanting to avoid awkward conversations about their reasoning than about threats to scientists.”

She also argued that it was counterproductive. “The secrecy is utterly patronising to the public. Government is effectively saying: ‘You must follow our rules, we're led by science, but you can’t know whose science or which scientists are included in that.’ Not surprisingly, it has done more for conspiracy mongering than David Icke could ever do.”

Sir Patrick resisted calls to release the group’s minutes, however. “One of the difficult roles of giving science advice in government of course is you have to be able to give that advice directly to ministers, so that they will have a chance to make the decisions that they need to make.

“It’s very difficult to do that if everything we're discussing immediately is public, and immediately gets visibility before anyone is able to make a decision. That’s the nature of scientific advice.”

[Paul Waine]

Anyone who's interested, there's a gov't website describing SAGE. There's also Meeting Summaries for a number of past meetings (not covid-19).

I've no idea how long this site has been available online, or when covid-19 was added.

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/sc ... ncies-sage

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.

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.
Membership
The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry.
The group typically is chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser or a departmental Chief Scientific Adviser.

[dsr]

I haven’t said the scientists are useless, but that the government cannot claim they’re following independent scientific advice, when Cummings and another were in attendance. It’s like adding horse meat to a beef lasagna and still calling it 100% beef.

Again, why was Cummings there? His role is political - to polish the turd that is Johnson. The committee reports back to the government as a committee. So what would Cummings have been reporting back? What individual scientists were saying? Who is supportive and who isn’t of the governments political aims? Or to push the direction of the discussions in a particular direction? We don’t know, but it will not have fostered free ranging discussion. When a band writes music alone, you’ll get everyone relaxed and focused on their parts. Add groupies, or a journalist and some will clam up, and others might try to show off. The result won’t be as good. Put more crudely, [deleted]

You have a strange sort of life. Two separate scatalogical references in one paragraph, one of you involving you making a public display of going to the toilet? Post again when you've sobered up.

You're still wrong about the presence of observers at meetings.

[N_N_N]

Interesting article on BBC website:

Coronavirus: UK failed to stockpile crucial PPE

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641

The government failed to buy crucial protective equipment to cope with a pandemic, a BBC investigation has found.

There were no gowns, visors, swabs or body bags in the government's pandemic stockpile when Covid-19 reached the UK.

NHS staff say they are being put at risk because of the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE).

The government said it has taken the right steps and is doing everything it can to increase stocks.

The investigation by BBC Panorama found that vital items were left out of the stockpile when it was set up in 2009 and that the government subsequently ignored a warning from its own advisers to buy missing equipment.

The expert committee that advises the government on pandemics, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), recommended the purchase of gowns last June.

Gowns are currently one of the items in shortest supply in the UK and they are now difficult to source because of the global shortage of PPE.

Doctors and nurses have complained that there are also shortages of the life-saving FFP3 respirator masks.

Panorama has discovered that millions of FFP3 respirator masks are unaccounted for.

There were 33 million on the original 2009 procurement list for the stockpile, but only 12 million have been handed out.

The government refuses to explain where the other masks have gone.

A government spokesperson said there was "limited demand" for the masks coming through the Supply Disruption Line, "which is one reason why they haven't all been distributed".

They added that gowns were a recent recommendation from the advisory group and would be procured for the "future stockpile build up alongside all other necessary equipment".

[N_N_N]

Part 2 of above article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641

Panorama has spoken to a number of NHS insiders about PPE who wish to remain anonymous.

"There is a complete lack of transparency from the government. They are creating panic, as we don't know if they can supply us so we are scrambling to get it elsewhere," a head of procurement told the programme.

The government also failed to stockpile visors, the swabs needed for testing and the body bags needed for the dead.

Professor John Ashton, a public health expert and long-standing critic of the government, told the programme the lack of preparation was breathtaking.

"The consequence of not planning; not ordering kit; not having stockpiles is that we are sending into the front line doctors, nurses, other health workers and social care workers without the equipment to keep them safe," he said.

A government spokesperson said the stockpile was designed for a flu pandemic and that Covid-19 is a different disease with a higher hospitalisation rate.

They said swabs and body bags were not recommended by Nervtag historically, but eye protection was, so the stockpile contains safety glasses.

Panorama also investigated changes to the government guidance on what PPE NHS staff should wear.

In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.

A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.

Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
Image caption An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover

But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.

Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.

But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).

Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".

The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.

It was another six days before Public Health England announced that the coronavirus was no longer considered an HCID.

A government spokesperson said Covid-19 was taken off the list because it has a low overall mortality rate and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific laboratory test for the virus.

They added the committee's advice that Covid-19 no longer be considered an HCID was based entirely on scientific considerations.

"The HCID classification is used for serious infections where there are limited numbers of cases requiring specialist input and facilities," the spokesperson said.

"This is an unprecedented global pandemic and we have taken the right steps at the right time to combat it, guided at all times by the best scientific advice.

"The government has been working day and night to battle against coronavirus, delivering a strategy designed at all times to protect our NHS and save lives."

You can watch the full Panorama programme, Has the Government Failed the NHS? on iPlayer here.

[IanMcL]

The idea of protecting the people is not high on the list of Conservative Gobernments. Protecting themselves and their buddies, yes.

To manipulate the grading if the emergency, based on a lack of preparation, is cynical corrupt and a crime against humanity.

[AndrewJB]

You have a strange sort of life. Two separate scatalogical references in one paragraph, one of you involving you making a public display of going to the toilet? Post again when you've sobered up.

You're still wrong about the presence of observers at meetings.

Translation: “I’m not going engage with your argument and I’ll accuse you of being drunk, because, you made an analogy that involved poop.”

Let’s wipe the slate clean, and you can explain how government scientific advice is independent, when the PMs number 2 (no pun intended)is also there? It’s not possible. There was no need for him to be there. The committee was always going to report. He was there for political reasons, and therefore the government advice was never “independent scientific advice.”

[dsr]

Translation: “I’m not going engage with your argument and I’ll accuse you of being drunk, because, you made an analogy that involved poop.”

Let’s wipe the slate clean, and you can explain how government scientific advice is independent, when the PMs number 2 (no pun intended)is also there? It’s not possible. There was no need for him to be there. The committee was always going to report. He was there for political reasons, and therefore the government advice was never “independent scientific advice.”

Engaging with the argument is impossible. You believe that a dozen and more scientists. pre-eminent in their field, are unable to have a full and practical discussion if a lay person representing their boss is present; I don't. You believe that you can get just as much information from reading the minutes as from being at the meeting; I don't. There's no common ground to engage with.

Are you sober on this occasion?

[Burnley Ace]

It seems like you're suggesting that you can only question the government if you are a 'supporter' of the opposition. Should tory voters not also be questioning the government? By posing the question in such a way you've inadvertently suggested that you've nailed your tory colours to the mast and will defend them regardless and that anybody who questions them is a labour supporter.

This isn't like supporting a football team, it's not about taking sides. It's about ensuring that the people responsible for running the country are doing a competent job, regardless of the colour of their neck tie.

Implying BJ wasn’t in ill and it was a diversion isn’t questioning the government. Suggesting that sources are withholding their identity because their worried about their career isn’t questioning the government. My objection is their politicising of this situation, they have no interest in what’s happening, they aren’t questioning the government, they are using this crisis as a political opportunity and it’s as simple as that.

[N_N_N]

Anyone who's interested, there's a gov't website describing SAGE. There's also Meeting Summaries for a number of past meetings (not covid-19).

I've no idea how long this site has been available online, or when covid-19 was added.

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/sc ... ncies-sage

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.

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.
Membership
The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry.
The group typically is chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser or a departmental Chief Scientific Adviser.

Thanks for the link Paul, very informative. I see from following the link ( https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/sc ... 9-response ) to the specific COVID-19 page that SAGE is itself advised by a series of expert groups.

"SAGE relies on external science advice and on advice from expert groups. During COVID-19 this includes the:

New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG)
Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) (Department for Health and Social Care)
Independent Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)

These groups consider the scientific evidence and feed in their consensus conclusions to SAGE."

There's also a lot of links on the same page to all of the "Scientific evidence supporting the government response to COVID-19".

[Paul Waine]

Thanks for the link Paul, very informative. I see from following the link ( https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/sc ... 9-response ) to the specific COVID-19 page that SAGE is itself advised by a series of expert groups.

"SAGE relies on external science advice and on advice from expert groups. During COVID-19 this includes the:

New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG)
Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) (Department for Health and Social Care)
Independent Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)

These groups consider the scientific evidence and feed in their consensus conclusions to SAGE."

There's also a lot of links on the same page to all of the "Scientific evidence supporting the government response to COVID-19".

I've started to read some of the Meeting Summaries from previous SAGE emergencies. H1N1 2009 looks particularly relevant. There was a review afterwards - I've not found where the results of the review are reported, yet. Terms of reference of review included:

1. What aspects of the Pandemic Flu Response worked well? What would you wish to do differently in another pandemic?

2. What aspects of the Pandemic Flu Response would have had to change in the event of a more severe pandemic?

[Zlatan]

£60k... Hush money...???

[NewClaret]

£60k... Hush money...???

Haha. Knew someone would find fault in it

On TV last night they said that this would be in addition to standard death in service benefits. Did Hancock confirm that specifically in his briefing?

[martin_p]

Engaging with the argument is impossible. You believe that a dozen and more scientists. pre-eminent in their field, are unable to have a full and practical discussion if a lay person representing their boss is present; I don't. You believe that you can get just as much information from reading the minutes as from being at the meeting; I don't. There's no common ground to engage with.

Are you sober on this occasion?

And you believe that if Cummings hadn’t been there then the way SAGE would have reported back is by sending the government the meeting minutes! You don’t really advance your argument with nonsense like that.

You’re also failing to engage with the allegation that Cummings wasn’t merely ‘observing’. By the way, if you think everyone is happy to have a full and frank discussion while ‘the boss’ (or in this case the bosses rep with a reputation for getting rid of people who don’t see things his way) is in the room I can’t imagine you’ve ever attended a meeting in a big organisation

[Paul Waine]

And you believe that if Cummings hadn’t been there then the way SAGE would have reported back is by sending the government the meeting minutes! You don’t really advance your argument with nonsense like that.

You’re also failing to engage with the allegation that Cummings wasn’t merely ‘observing’. By the way, if you think everyone is happy to have a full and frank discussion while ‘the boss’ (or in this case the bosses rep with a reputation for getting rid of people who don’t see things his way) is in the room I can’t imagine you’ve ever attended a meeting in a big organisation

Hi martin, I recommend we all take a look at the SAGE meeting summaries from previous events. I've posted link above.

[Zlatan]

Haha. Knew someone would find fault in it

On TV last night they said that this would be in addition to standard death in service benefits. Did Hancock confirm that specifically in his briefing?

I’ve actually got no idea. From my experience with the NHS and working in the government sector there will be clauses in the payment that prevent any legal action against either the NHS or the government, hence the post.

I personally do think it’s a preemptive attempt at hush money. That’s not a dig at the current incumbents it’s generally what people in power try to do to minimise the problems they may face.

[Paul Waine]

Haha. Knew someone would find fault in it

On TV last night they said that this would be in addition to standard death in service benefits. Did Hancock confirm that specifically in his briefing?

Radio 4 this morning someone who'd been campaigning for this action says it covers everyone, including overseas, including returned pensioners. Son of the PPE doctor who died also says it's in addition to existing death in service pension benefits.

[NewClaret]

Radio 4 this morning someone who'd been campaigning for this action says it covers everyone, including overseas, including returned pensioners. Son of the PPE doctor who died also says it's in addition to existing death in service pension benefits.

Thanks. Maybe some credit then? Or maybe not....

[martin_p]

Hi martin, I recommend we all take a look at the SAGE meeting summaries from previous events. I've posted link above.

How many did Dominic Cummings attend?

[joey13]

What would be the benefit of checking people specifically at airports, or quarantining them even?

You seriously posted that

[N_N_N]

Latest weekly deaths figures have just been published by the ONS, for week ending 17th April (week 16).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 7april2020


The provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 17 April 2020 (Week 16) was 22,351; this represents an increase of 3,835 deaths registered compared with the previous week (Week 15) and 11,854 more than the five-year average; this is the highest weekly total recorded since comparable figures begin in 1993.

Of the deaths registered in Week 16, 8,758 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, which is 39.2% of all deaths; this compares with 6,213 (33.6% of all deaths) in Week 15.

In London, over half (55.5%) of deaths registered in Week 16 involved COVID-19; the North West and North East also had a high proportion of COVID-19 deaths, accounting for 42.3% and 41.1% respectively of deaths registered in these regions.

Of deaths involving COVID-19 registered up to Week 16, 77.4% (14,796 deaths) occurred in hospital with the remainder occurring in care homes, private homes and hospices.

The number of overall deaths in care homes for Week 16 was 7,316; this is 2,389 higher than Week 15, almost double the number in Week 14 and almost triple the number in Week 13.

Week 16 included the Easter Monday bank holiday, and the five-year average shows a decrease in registrations over the Easter holiday; however, the Coronavirus Act 2020 allowed registry offices to remain open over Easter, which may have reduced any drop in registrations for Week 16 2020.

[Spijed]

Hi martin, I recommend we all take a look at the SAGE meeting summaries from previous events. I've posted link above.

Apparently, the so called 'Sage' group has no expertise!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ngcGxAtWi4

[Burnley Ace]

You seriously posted that

Enlighten us. How would you work it and why aren’t you testing everyone who gets on the Tube?

[N_N_N]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 7april2020

Screenshot (703).png (101.3 KiB) Viewed 2544 times

[N_N_N]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 7april2020

Figures also show the number of COVID-19 deaths in care homes continues to increase:

Screenshot (705).png (69.5 KiB) Viewed 2536 times

[MalaysiaMo]

I posted this on t'other thread about sunlight and Novel Coronavirus. Seems relevant here too.

Singapore has one of the highest population densities in the world. The first COVID-19 case was confirmed here on 23 January. Since then there have been 14,400 cases of COVID-19 confirmed in Singapore, and a total of 12 (twelve) deaths (this number includes those who died in care homes). Compare that to the UK: first confirmed case = 29 January, almost a week after Singapore, total number of confirmed COVID-19 infections = 157,149, total number of hospital only deaths linked directly to COVID-19 = 21,092 (twenty one thousand and ninety two).

More than 21,000 deaths in the UK (not including those who have died outside hospitals) linked directly to COVID-19, compared with a total of 12 in Singapore.

The pandemic response plan that Singapore implemented in January was "borrowed" from the UK - basically test, trace and confine (isolate). Unlike the UK, however, Singapore implemented the plan. What staggers health experts here in Singapore - and I work with some of them - is why the UK had an internationally respected pandemic response plan, and then just chose to ignore it.

I suspect the "why" will come out eventually. It will have to, otherwise the same mistakes will be made the next time around. And there will be a next time.

[Rileybobs]

You seriously posted that

Yes. Please explain what you think is the benefit of testing and quarantining people arriving into the country at airports.

[N_N_N]

The figures are staggering - almost 12,000 excess deaths in week 16 (week ending 17th April) alone, and that's only for England & Wales.

And of these excess deaths only 8,758 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)", so just over 3,000 excess deaths where the cause of death didn't mention "novel coronavirus (COVID-19)".

[Grumps]

Yes. Please explain what you think is the benefit of testing and quarantining people arriving into the country at airports.

Doubt you'll get a sensible answer from him if yesterday is anything to go by.

[Paul Waine]

How many did Dominic Cummings attend?

Best you take a look at the links, then you will understand that you are asking me the wrong question.

The link may give you an idea how many previous "Cummings" have attended earlier SAGE meetings.

[Paul Waine]

Apparently, the so called 'Sage' group has no expertise!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ngcGxAtWi4

Wonderful opening paragraph from the Guardian.

"The success of any advisory group of scientists surely depends on a culture of openness, independence and diversity of opinion. Unfortunately this culture of openness has been conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies. It’s only through the persistence of Guardian journalists that we can now identify 23 participants in Sage. Of these, 13 are paid government employees, working as ministerial, health or civil service advisers. As such, the presence of their bosses, Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty, to say nothing of the prime ministers’s most senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, might well influence their ability to speak freely."

Do you get the impression the "persistent Guardian journalists" haven't had the time to look at the Meeting Summaries of previous SAGE meetings? They all have a statement saying something along the lines of: "The CHAIRS reminded those present in person and by phone that the papers and proceedings of the meeting were confidential and should not be disclosed." (This specific quote from SWINE FLU, MINUTES of a Meeting held in the Boardroom, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London, SWIA 2NS at 10.30 am on 11th January 2010).

[Devils_Advocate]

[martin_p]

Best you take a look at the links, then you will understand that you are asking me the wrong question.

The link may give you an idea how many previous "Cummings" have attended earlier SAGE meetings.

Ok, I’ll widen it out to ‘chief government advisors with a reputation for rubbishing and then getting rid of those who disagree with him’. And as a second question, how many of those other meetings have resulted in members stating they were uncomfortable with the government observer’s interjections?

[Paul Waine]

Ok, I’ll widen it out to ‘chief government advisors with a reputation for rubbishing and then getting rid of those who disagree with him’. And as a second question, how many of those other meetings have resulted in members stating they were uncomfortable with the government observer’s interjections?

Do we know who has made the "uncomfortable" claim?

[Devils_Advocate]

Do we know who the Downing Streets spokesperson was who disputed the Gaurdians 'uncomfortable' claims?

[martin_p]

Do we know who has made the "uncomfortable" claim?

Does it matter? Why would he/she reveal themselves given what I’ve pointed out about Cummings modus operandi anyway?

[jackmiggins]

Just wondering why Paul Waine & Grumps seem to pop up together in every separate thread regarding the virus? Can he/she explain?

[Paul Waine]

Does it matter? Why would he/she reveal themselves given what I’ve pointed out about Cummings modus operandi anyway?

Yes, martin, I think it matters. Why do think it doesn't? Aren't you calling for transparency?

[Paul Waine]

Just wondering why Paul Waine & Grumps seem to pop up together in every separate thread regarding the virus? Can he/she explain?

I did you a disservice, not 2 threads, it's 3.

No worries.

[martin_p]

Yes, martin, I think it matters. Why do think it doesn't? Aren't you calling for transparency?

Why does it matter?

[Paul Waine]

Why does it matter?

No, you are right, it doesn't matter. Why do you make these unfounded accusations about Cummings?

[Greenmile]

No, you are right, it doesn't matter. Why do you make these unfounded accusations about Cummings?

What makes you think they’re unfounded? Do you not believe any whistleblower whose anonymity is preserved?