The UK government’s relationship with scientists during the Covid-19 pandemic is facing scrutiny, revealing tensions and disagreements that have affected the country’s response to the crisis. The former chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, recently gave evidence to the Covid inquiry, shedding light on the strained dynamics between the government and scientific experts. This comes as Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, is due to provide testimony soon.
Sections of Sir Patrick’s diaries, which have been released to the public, contain blunt descriptions of politicians such as Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Chancellor Rishi Sunak, and former Health Secretary Matt Hancock. Witnesses in previous hearings have also criticized Johnson’s leadership abilities and his confusion when it comes to understanding science. Sunak has been accused of prioritizing the economy over public health, while Hancock has been labeled as dishonest.
One shocking revelation from Sir Patrick’s testimony was the lack of communication between the government and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), which he chaired. It was disclosed that Sage wasn’t informed about Sunak’s Eat out to help out scheme until it was publicly announced. Additionally, there were instances where Hancock requested changes to official advice, which were denied.
Sir Patrick’s testimony emphasized the UK’s overall lack of preparedness for the pandemic, highlighting the limitations faced by public health officials in implementing an effective test, trace, and isolate system. He also criticized the NHS for failing to provide Sage with the necessary data for modeling, albeit indirectly. Reflecting on the crucial early months of the pandemic, Sir Patrick admitted that scientists made an error in thinking they could control the timing of the disease’s spread. However, he believes this miscalculation only caused a delay of a few days in the March 2020 lockdown, considering the evidence available at the time.
Regarding the disagreements between Sir Patrick and Prof Whitty, the former downplayed any clashes of views. He argued that Whitty’s cautious approach to lockdowns was a reflection of his role as the chief medical officer, which encompasses considering public health comprehensively, including the potential increase in poverty resulting from economic contractions.
Sir Patrick’s expertise in medicine and pharmacology lends weight to his testimony. Under questioning, he expressed his frustration with politicians’ limited understanding of crucial concepts like exponential growth, which may be attributed to the impatience of a scientist dealing with non-scientists during a crisis. This raises questions about the qualifications and qualities required for those in positions of authority.
Sir Patrick highlighted that Prime Minister Boris Johnson abandoned science at the age of 15, and until recently, only a small percentage (10%) of recruits to the civil service fast stream came from science or math backgrounds. The chair of the inquiry, Lady Hallett, also drew attention to Sir Patrick’s experience of being reprimanded by civil servants for speaking candidly about the growing threat, indicating a prioritization of bureaucratic processes over substance.
The ongoing Covid inquiry is providing valuable insights into not only the handling of the pandemic but also the inner workings and culture of the UK government. As the hearings continue, it will be essential to distill the lessons learned from the extensive information presented. This inquiry sheds light on the need for a balanced approach, incorporating diverse perspectives and expertise in decision-making processes. The revelations from this inquiry have both immediate relevance to the pandemic response and broader implications for the functioning of government.
