Trouble In Store: How Highly Paid, Job-Secure

Lockdown Zealots Have Helped Kill Off The

British High Street
Neil Clark 2 Dec, 2020

UK department store chain Debenhams is to close with the direct loss of 12,000 jobs.
Yet the well-off „experts‟ continue to champion ruinous lockdowns, oblivious to the
devastation they are wreaking on people‟s lives.

It was more than just a shop. Debenhams was part of British life. Part of the national
fabric. It was a Clark who started it. William Clark (no relation, or at least not that I am
aware of), began trading as a draper‟s store in 1778. Thirty-five years later, Mr.
Debenham became a partner and the name changed to Clark & Debenham.

Now, Debenhams is no more. Or rather it will be no more once its fire sale is over.

2020 is sucking the pleasure out of so many things, not least in regard to shopping.
„Click and Collect‟ is being aggressively promoted, but the joy of shopping is in the
lingering. In the browsing. But the „experts‟ don‟t want us to do that. They want us to
queue up to go into a shop, quickly make a purchase and leave.

Earlier in the week, the behavioural psychologist and well-heeled political activist
Professor Susan Michie of SAGE and „Independent Sage‟ tried to terrify us still further
by saying that going into non-essential shops was like playing “Russian roulette.”

Michie claimed, “We’re all taking a gamble any time we’re putting ourselves into a place
where other people are who might be infected.” Did she even stop to think, or care, how
her comments might affect the trade of these „non-essential‟ shops?

Like many other department stores, Debenhams wasn‟t in rude health going into 2020,
which I commented on in the Daily Express in January, but lockdown delivered the final
blow. As it did to the wonderful Edinburgh Woollen Mill, founded in 1946, but now
in administration.

Back in the 1980s, the EWM owned racehorses. Now, like all the other companies that
have collapsed since March, its race is run. You really didn‟t have to be Nostradamus to
predict the disastrous impact that lockdowns and other Covid-19 restrictions would have
not just on the high street, but the economy in general.

Put another way: how could the government order the shutdown of millions of
businesses without there being a disastrous impact in terms of jobs and a cataclysmic
fall in GDP? Yet, incredibly some thought there would be no great price to pay. That we
could just carry on locking down for months on end and then everything would be
absolutely hunky dory afterwards.

As labelling people „deniers‟ is all the rage, perhaps we could call these people – who
tweeted the „#ExtendtheLockdown‟ hashtag in May and June – as „basic rules of
economics deniers‟. Now, they very publicly shed crocodile tears for jobs lost and call
for more „support‟ for those out of work, yet they advocated the very policies which were
guaranteed to bring these unhappy outcomes about.

The Labour Party has been particularly disingenuous. “Thousands of Debenhams staff
and their families face huge uncertainty this Christmas. Retail workers across the
country will be worried about the future. Our high streets face a defining few months.
We must fight to protect good jobs and good businesses,” tweeted Labour leader Sir
Keir Starmer when the news broke. But Labour‟s line throughout the year has been to
push for even tougher restrictions.

What all the advocates of lockdowns and draconian restrictions on business have in
common is that they‟re all in highly paid and secure jobs, usually in the upper echelons
of the public sector. This is the real Covid divide of 2020.

I‟m not just referring here to government ministers like Health Secretary Matt Hancock,
who gets £141,000. Or pro-lockdown MPs on £82,000, plus all the other perks. Or the
well-paid union leaders. Or indeed the well-heeled government scientists and members
of SAGE. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty is on a salary of £200,000.

Today, Whitty tweeted that the newly authorised vaccine was only a “step” towards
normal and strongly hinted that restrictions would need to continue until at least the
spring. How many more businesses will that bankrupt? But rest assured Chris will still
be getting his salary paid in full each month, whatever happens.

And then there‟s the high-profile lockdown- promoting „A-List‟ media celebrities too, like
Piers Morgan, the co-presenter of Good Morning Britain, who tweeted in 2017 that
he gets paid £22.5 million a year.

When I hear these people spout off about how restrictions shouldn‟t be eased, or need
to be strengthened still further, I am always reminded of the words of Upton Sinclair. “It
is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it,” the great American novelist once said. We can update Upton for
2020: “It is difficult to get a man to understand the negative effects of lockdowns and
draconian Covid restrictions when his salary won’t be adversely affected by them.”
Just a day before the sad news about Debenhams was announced, Neil Ferguson, on
whose modelling lockdown was based, appeared on the BBC‟s Newsnight programme
to say that he had received hate mail.

We were all meant to feel very sorry for him. Don‟t get me wrong, sending hate mail is
wrong. But it is surely Ferguson who should be saying sorry to everyone else. He
remains in a well-paid, secure position as a professor at Imperial College. Ferguson
said, “As a scientist who has been quite prominent at times in the epidemic for me and
people like me, it has been, at times, very difficult.”

As „difficult‟ as it is for Debenhams staff who were told, just a few weeks before
Christmas, that they had lost their jobs? What kind of Christmas will they have?

Britain is heading for mass unemployment in the New Year. But the people who urged,
and propagandized, for ruinous lockdowns which have put the country on course for its
worst slump for 300 years will be immune to its consequences. And it really didn‟t have
to be this way. Countries which didn‟t lock down or shut down entire sectors of their
economy have had lower death rates from Covid-19 than those which did. Just compare
per capita deaths in Belarus and Sweden with Britain and Spain. Or consider that the
countries at the top of the per capita deaths table, Belgium and Peru, both locked down
hard and early.

There is no evidence that lockdown led to a net saving of lives (quite the contrary in
fact). But there is evidence – all around us – of the economic destruction it has caused.
Lockdowns, even on their own terms, don‟t work, but the sad truth is that only when
those advocating continued restrictions start losing THEIR jobs and their high salaries
will the situation change.

British Army Spies Wage ‘Information War’

Against Anti-Vaxx Content Online – Report
29 Nov, 2020

With a significant number of Britons skeptical of a Covid vaccine, the army has
reportedly deployed an “information warfare” unit to stamp out anti-vaxx propaganda
online. Offline, citizens still protest lockdowns in the streets.

The British government is expected to greenlight a coronavirus vaccine and begin its
distribution next month. In addition to the logistical challenge of getting millions of doses
to the public, the government also faces the hurdle of convincing them to take it.
According to a recent poll by the British Academy and the Royal Society, more than a
third of people in Britain say they‟re either uncertain or very unlikely to take the vaccine.
According to a report in the Sunday Times, ministers are preparing to launch a massive
public information campaign to convince people to take the jab. Behind the scenes,
however, the Times reported that the British Army has mobilized the 77th Brigade‟s
Defence Cultural Specialist Unit to monitor and counter “online propaganda against
vaccines.”

The unit was formed in 2010 and worked alongside psychological operations teams in
Afghanistan, studying the behavior of the civilian population and giving cultural and
linguistic advice to ground troops, according to the brigade‟s own website. However,
according to a number of media reports, the unit counts at least one
Twitter executive among its ranks, and is said to create and manage fake social media
profiles to shape public opinion.

The media discovered that the 77th Brigade‟s speciality, according to a plaque on the
wall of its Berkshire base, is creating “behavioural change.”

With the rollout of a vaccine imminent, the unit is “already monitoring cyberspace for
Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted
online,” according to the Times.

The Times‟ report does not detail exactly how the unit will fight back against anti-vaxx
content, or even what kind of content will be targeted. A Ministry of Defence
spokesperson told the Times that the brigade‟s efforts are “not being directed at the UK
population,” and leaked documents reportedly suggest that its strategy
includes “gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including
Russia.”

Despite the apparent focus on Moscow as a hub of vaccine disinformation, Russia was
the first country in the world to approve a Covid-19 vaccine, and a second Russian-
made jab will be made available to the public next month.

Meanwhile on the streets of London, crowds gathered on Saturday to protest the

government‟s lockdown measures, as a system of tiered restrictions will come into force
on Wednesday. Critics argue that this system is simply an extension of the current
national lockdown, and as the demonstrators in London chanted “freedom” and “stop
controlling us,” police arrested more than 150 people, mostly for defying these lockdown
restrictions.

While many feel unjustly controlled by the lockdown, the government has also
reportedly deployed its intelligence agencies to control public opinion online. In addition
to the 77th Brigade‟s efforts, GCHQ – the UK‟s signals intelligence agency – has been
tasked with countering online disinformation, according to the Times. Though its exact
role in this fight remains unknown, the media revealed that the agency has previously
“developed covert tools to seed the internet with false information,” manipulated online
polls and covertly influenced online discussion. According to documents leaked by NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden, the British public have been targeted by GCHQ.

Amid the online information war, there have been over 1.6 million Covid-19 cases in the
UK, as well as more than 57,000 deaths.

The UK’s Covid-19 Response Is Being Led By A

Secretive, Incompetent Cabal. No Wonder Our
Policies Have Been Such A Shambles
27 Apr, 2020 by Chris Sweeney

The clandestine scientific body SAGE, which has helped shape the
British government's Covid-19 policy, has serious questions to
answer about corruption, incompetence and chaos.

They were a mysterious cabal of individuals plotting behind closed doors, whispering
about initiatives to implement on an unwitting British population.

Now the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) has finally been forced
into the light.

Up until a few days ago, their identities were being kept secret because of an alleged
fear of being lobbied. Their job is to meet twice a week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) to
discuss Britain's response to Covid-19.

The government's own website lists them as “a formal part of the UK government’s
emergency response structure.”

Now they've been stripped of their camouflage.

But it's no wonder the members of SAGE wanted to remain faceless and lurk in the
shadows.

Even though some spin is now being applied to whether he was officially part of SAGE
or just attended the meetings, Downing Street data scientist Ben Warner is one of them.

He was in the room, having his say and being part of the discussions.

Anyone with a modicum of awareness will find that shocking, given that his brother Marc
has benefited massively from the UK's pandemic response.
Marc's company Faculty has recently been awarded the contract to be part of the new
government app, which will mine the confidential data of Covid-19 hospital patients.

The deal was done, bypassing the normal tender process or any parliamentary scrutiny,
because ministers used obscure statutory powers given to them in 2015.

Faculty already had a contract in place to help build a £250 million artificial intelligence
lab for the NHS.

Ben, who used to work for his brother's company, was recruited by Boris Johnson's
right-hand man Dominic Cummings.

It's no surprise to hear that Cummings is also part of SAGE.

Alleged corruption – that’s the first charge which requires answers.

Another indefensible clanger from SAGE involves the 17.5 million antibody tests which
the government ordered and paid for from China.

Only, they didn‟t work. As Professor John Bell of Public Health England (but not of
SAGE) explained: “We see many false negatives… and we also see false positives.
This is not a good result for test suppliers or for us.”

The government is now wasting more valuable time and effort trying to get a refund,
while the country reels from a rising death toll, which has now topped 20,000 and is on
course to be the highest in Europe.

But Professor Sharon Peacock of SAGE proclaimed in the last week of March that
finger-prick tests would be “a game changer” and that people would be able to pop into
a pharmacy for a quick and easy check.

Professor Peacock has a webpage telling all and sundry about her academic
credentials and about her role at the “esteemed” University of Cambridge. She has 25
years of experience, has trained 22 PhD students and authored over 400 scientific
articles or book chapters.

With all this supposed knowledge and experience, why didn't she pipe up at one of the
many SAGE meetings and voice concerns about these tests not working before we
bought 17.5 million of them?

How can an expert in that field be aware enough to speak out in public but not be aware
enough to ascertain how accurate the tests are?

That's the second charge: incompetence.

Alongside Professor Peacock at SAGE are several other academics with grandiose
titles, representing Oxford University, Imperial College, King's College and the
University of Edinburgh.

The group also features individuals such as Professor Charlotte Watts, chief scientific
adviser at the Department of International Development, and Emma Reed, the director
of emergency response and health protection at the Department of Health.

With this menagerie of grandiose titles, professorships and links to venerated

institutions, why has the UK's response been so amateur?

Abu Dhabi, which has nothing like the renowned establishments or academic pedigree
of the UK, bought its police officers helmets which can scan the temperatures of 200
people per minute from five metres away. It identifies possible Covid-19 victims, who
are then hospitalised.

Their force is also out delivering gloves and masks to people who need them, and they
have set up testing centres in the most populated areas so that people can line up and
get checked instantly.

Over here, under the guidance of SAGE, Britain's initiatives are embarrassing. A
website opened at 6am one day last week to allow key workers to order a home test. By
6:02am, it had run out and had to be shut down.

The option to book a test involves having to drive to a car park somewhere, while
someone from the army leans through your window to take a swab from your mouth.
What if you suspect you have the virus but don't own a car?

That's if you can even get an appointment, as they were all gone in a matter of minutes
– except in Scotland.

The tests were only supposed to be for key workers, but the website has no way to
properly check this, so anyone can sign up – and clearly they have, meaning lots of key
workers are left whistling in the wind.

There is also a shortage of masks; the UK public were told not to buy any, so that
medics could get them instead.

Why didn't any of SAGE‟s luminaries speak out or see this coming? Why didn't they do
what other places like Abu Dhabi have?

They built a 127-bed temporary hospital complete with air conditioning, ventilators and a
full staff to operate it.

Meanwhile, the UK‟s Nightingale temporary hospital in East London, with space for
3,600, had only 26 patients last week, because there are no staff to work there.
That's the third charge: overseeing chaos.

Britain's academics and universities are standing on the shoulders of giants who built
the country into what it is.

Those giants are ordinary, working class folk, the ones who right now are dying in vast
numbers.
Every member of SAGE should hang their heads in shame.

If they could see that clear errors were being made, they should have spoken out and
sent up a flare immediately.

If they didn't see the errors, then they shouldn't be involved in decision making ever
again.
Either way, when the British people needed their academics and scientists – who have
benefited from all their historic tax contributions – to deliver, they didn't.

Lions led by donkeys and dunderheads.

Dominic Cummings and SAGE: Advisory Group‟s

Veil Of Secrecy Has To Be Lifted
April 26, 2020 2.13am AEST

Author Chris Tyler Associate Professor in Science Policy and Knowledge Infrastructure,
UCL

Disclosure statement Chris Tyler receives funding from the UK Economic and Social
Research Council.

Partners University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The

Conversation UK.

Dominic Cummings watching the prime minister

during a Covid-19 press conference on March
17. MATT DUNHAM / POOL/EPA

Dominic Cummings, the UK prime minister‟s

chief political adviser, and his colleague Ben
Warner have attended meetings of the Scientific
Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). Is this
a big deal?
A report by a team of reporters in the Guardian newspaper claimed the pair were “on
the secret scientific group”. A government statement was heavily critical of the report,
but said Cummings and Warner had attended meetings. It claimed they were not
members of the body, but occasionally asked questions.

SAGE provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers
during emergencies. The government statement said Cummings may have answered
questions “when scientists mention problems in Whitehall”. This has caused outrage in
some quarters. Sir David King, a former UK government chief scientific adviser, was
reportedly “shocked” to hear that Cummings had been attending some SAGE meetings.
“If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias,” he
told The Guardian, adding on Twitter it “marries with all of my worst fears”.

I research how policy makers use scientific evidence, and a key question for me is what
role Cummings was playing on SAGE. There is a potential spectrum of engagement
with the group which at one end is perfectly acceptable and at the other is completely
unacceptable.

It could well be that Cummings wanted to listen to SAGE discussions so that he could
gain an understanding of how the debate within SAGE led to its summaries and
recommendations. This to my mind would be fine. After all, in conditions of extreme
uncertainty, like with COVID-19, the debate is at least as important as the conclusions
of deliberation.

One might argue that his very presence could impede on the independence of the
advice. But I would contend that the members of SAGE are all grown-ups and can act
independently even when being observed.

It is conceivable that in this scenario a SAGE member might have the occasional
question for Cummings, for example, on the political parameters within which they are
working. Would this be improper? Again, not necessarily; although it may have been
more appropriate to have an apolitical cabinet civil servant present.

The questions that SAGE is answering are coming from a political place – COBR, a
committee also known as COBRA that is convened to handle matters of national
emergency or major disruption. Even questions like “how fast is the virus spreading and
where?” and “how many people are likely to die?” are ultimately being framed through a
political lens.

So going by the government‟s statement, which outlined Cummings‟s role as listening,

and asking and answering the occasional question, I think that, given the extraordinary
circumstances of this crisis and the centrality of his role in government decision-making,
his attendance is not something to fret over.
But if the Guardian report that “Downing Street advisers were not merely observing the
advisory meetings, but actively participating in discussions about the formation of
advice” is accurate, that would be more of a matter for concern.

That raises questions about the role of politics in framing scientific advice. That is not
the job of SAGE. SAGE is there to summarise the scientific and technical evidence and
present scientific and technical recommendations. Those are then sent up to COBR and
ultimately the prime minister makes a decision based on both the science and the
politics. If the advice from SAGE is already politicised, the prime minister would have a
harder time distinguishing between the science and the politics. It would also make it
easier for him to blame SAGE for his own decisions, something that people are
increasingly worried about.

The job of SAGE is to co-ordinate and peer review scientific and technical advice to
inform decision making. In other words, it should bring together the right people to
review evidence relating to the question at hand. What the science says should not be
influenced by the political options being considered.

Make minutes public

Political decisions should be informed by the science; the science should not be
informed by the politics. This scenario raises the central question of this story: the
independence of SAGE. The Guardian called it a “supposedly independent body” and
the government in its statement about Cummings described SAGE as providing
“independent scientific advice to the government”.

Interestingly, the notion of SAGE being independent appears nowhere in its 64 pages of
guidelines. Even though everyone “knows” that SAGE should be independent, the
government‟s official guidelines do not recognise this “fact”. As a first step, the 2012
SAGE guidelines should now be updated to outline the role of SAGE – which should
include “independence” – and instructions as to when and if it is appropriate for political
advisers to be present and, if so, what role they should play.

In order for us to ascertain the role played by Cummings or any other future political
adviser, the minutes of SAGE meetings must be made public. The government clearly
believes that the advice provided to it by SAGE should be private, but that runs counter
to its own guidance on how science advisory committees should work, which calls for
“openness and transparency”.

The problem with not being open and transparent is that it is impossible for parliament,
the media and researchers to scrutinise what is going on. What is the advice the
government is being given? Is government really following that advice? Who is giving it?

This is hardly a new issue. The secrecy of SAGE has been raised before, by the House
of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee in a 2011 report on scientific
advice and evidence in emergencies, with a particular focus on the volcanic ash
emergency of 2010. In that report, concerned MPs said all the same things that I am
saying here: that SAGE membership should not be secret and that the minutes should
be published.

The new Science and Technology Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Greg
Clark, should revisit that report, reiterate its recommendations and the government
should accept them.
Revealed: Cummings Is On Secret Scientific
Advisory Group For Covid-19
Exclusive: Leaked list reveals presence of Johnson adviser and Vote Leave ally on
supposedly independent body

 Who‟s who on Sage?

 Case for transparency never clearer
 See all our coronavirus coverage

Severin Carrell, David Pegg, Felicity Lawrence, Paul Lewis, Rob Evans, David Conn,
Harry Davies and Kate Proctor

Fri 24 Apr 2020 18.27 BST Last modified on Sat 25 Apr 2020 00.00 BST

The prime minister‟s chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings, and a data scientist he
worked with on the Vote Leave campaign for Brexit are on the secret scientific group
advising the government on the coronavirus pandemic, according to a list leaked to the
Guardian.

It reveals that both Cummings and Ben Warner were among 23 attendees present at a
crucial convening of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) on 23 March,
the day Boris Johnson announced a nationwide lockdown in a televised address.

Who's who on secret scientific group advising UK

government?
Read more

Multiple attendees of Sage told the Guardian that both Cummings and Warner had been
taking part in meetings of the group as far back as February. The inclusion of Downing
Street advisers on Sage will raise questions about the independence of its scientific
advice.

There has been growing pressure on Downing Street in recent days to disclose more
details about the group, which provides scientific advice to the upper echelons of
government during emergencies. Both the membership of Sage and its advice to
ministers on the Covid-19 outbreak is being kept secret.

Warner, a data scientist, was reportedly recruited to Downing Street last year by
Cummings after running the Conservative party‟s general election campaign model. He
is also said to have worked closely with Cummings on the data modelling used in the
Vote Leave campaign for the UK to leave the European Union.
The government‟s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King said he was “shocked”
to discover there were political advisers on Sage. “If you are giving science advice, your
advice should be free of any political bias,” he said. “That is just so critically important.”

Told that Cummings was in the 23 March meeting, King replied: “Oh my goodness. Isn‟t
this maybe why they don‟t want us to know who was there?”

King said political advisers were never on the equivalent committees of Sage when he
chaired them and argued that Cummings, who is not a scientist, could report his own
interpretation of Sage advice back to the prime minister.

Other former members of Sage also said they could not recall political appointees being
on previous committees. David Lidington, a former Cabinet Office minister and de facto
deputy to Theresa May when she was prime minister, said: “I‟m not aware of any
minister or special adviser, certainly not in Theresa May‟s time, ever having been
involved in the scientific advisory panels.”

In a statement provided by Downing Street, a government spokesperson said: “Expert

participants often vary for each meeting according to which expertise is required. A
number of representatives from government departments and No 10 attend also.”

Late on Friday, Downing Street released a second statement. “It is not true that Mr
Cummings or Dr Warner are „on‟ or members of Sage. Mr Cummings and Dr Warner
have attended some Sage meetings and listen to some meetings now they are all
virtual. Occasionally they ask questions or offer help when scientists mention problems
in Whitehall,” a No 10 spokesman said.

“Sage provides independent scientific advice to the government. Political advisers have
no role in this,” the spokesperson added. “Public confidence in the media has collapsed
during this emergency partly because of ludicrous stories such as this.”

Downing Street declined to say how many Sage meetings Cummings and Warner
attended, or whether any other political advisers took part.

Sage participants told the Guardian the Downing Street advisers were not merely
observing the advisory meetings, but actively participating in discussions about the
formation of advice.

In a letter to parliament this month, Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government‟s chief
scientific adviser, who chairs Sage, said the “decision not to disclose” membership of
the committee was based on advice from the Centre for the Protection of National
Infrastructure.

“This contributes towards safeguarding individual members‟ personal security and

protects them from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder
their ability to give impartial advice,” Vallance wrote. “Of course, we do not stop
individuals from revealing that they have attended Sage.”

On Friday, England‟s chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, appeared to signal a
change in direction, saying the public had a right to know who sat on Sage. He told a
Commons science select committee that while it was important to consider security
concerns, there was “absolutely no barrier” from him or Vallance. Asked if in the current
climate revealing the names of who was on the group would boost public confidence in
the scientific advice being given, Whitty replied: “Yes.”

Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are

known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining
public trust in the government‟s response to Covid-19.

Since the outbreak, ministers have stuck to the script that their policies are guided by
scientific advice, while declining to reveal where the advice is coming from or what
exactly it contains.

Other countries have been more open about the scientific evidence behind their
decisions, and the UK‟s approach has raised eyebrows overseas.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Sage operates in “a virtual black box”.
“Its list of members is secret, its meetings are closed, its recommendations are private
and the minutes of its deliberations are published much later, if at all.”

The Guardian understands that Sage first met for a precautionary meeting to discuss
Covid-19 on 22 January, then again on 28 January. It met a further nine times in
February, and 10 times in March. It is currently meeting around twice a week.

It understood that while the chief medical officers and chief scientific advisers of the
devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allowed to
listen in on Sage meetings, they have been doing so as observers. Unlike Cummings
and Warner, they were not allowed to ask questions, having to instead submit them in
writing in advance.

While core members of the committee, such as Whitty, attend all meetings, other clinical
experts, scientists and epidemiologists do not attend every meeting, but can be asked in
on a rotating basis to provide specific advice. Sage tends to be guided by specific
questions that they are asked to consider by the Cabinet Office‟s emergency Cobra
meetings.

Other Sage participants at the 23 March meeting included Sharon Peacock, the director
of the National Infection Service at Public Health England, and Ian Diamond, the head
of the Government Statistical Service. Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College
epidemiologist whose models have been central to government decision–making, was
also present, along with fellow infectious disease specialists, Graham Medley and John
Edmunds.

Others attendees included Brooke Rogers, a professor of behavioural science at King‟s

College – who also chairs the Cabinet Office‟s National Risk Assessment Behavioural
Science Advisory Group – and James Rubin, also at King‟s, who chairs a Sage
subcommittee that provides specific advice on behavioural science.

However it is the inclusion of two Downing Street political advisers that will raise
questions over whether the structure of the government‟s scientific advisory process is
free from political interference.

A source in Downing Street said that in March Cummings was playing a commanding
role in responding to the Covid-19 outbreak. Cummings is understood to be close to
Warner, whose brother, Marc, runs Faculty, an artificial intelligence company that the
Guardian revealed is involved in an “unprecedented” data-mining operation as part of
the government‟s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

An accomplished data scientist, Ben Warner previously worked at his brother‟s AI

company, which has teamed up with Palantir, the US data firm founded by the rightwing
billionaire Peter Thiel, to consolidate UK government databases to help ministers
respond to the pandemic.

Who's Who On Secret Scientific Group Advising

UK Government?
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) is advising cabinet on coronavirus
response

On Friday the Guardian revealed the 23 attendees of the Scientific Advisory Group for
Emergencies (Sage). They comprise 21 scientists and two Downing Street political
advisers.

Sir Patrick Vallance, chief scientific officer

The government‟s chief scientific adviser and former president

of research and development at GlaxoSmithKline. In the run-up
to the EU referendum he warned that a vote for Brexit would
mean uncertainty for future drug development.

Prof Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer

A doctor and epidemiologist with an enormous reputation

among colleagues, he has devoted much of his career to
malaria research in Africa. Previously chief scientific adviser at the Department for
International Development and the Department of Health.

Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, deputy chief medical officer

An expert in influenza and respiratory viruses, Van-Tam is a

professor of health protection at the University of Nottingham‟s
school of medicine and sat on Sage during the 2009 swine flu
pandemic.

Prof Stephen Powis, national medical director of NHS England

A professor of renal medicine at University College London,

he was the leading voice calling for former health workers to
return to the NHS to help deal with the pandemic.

Prof Sharon Peacock, director of the National Infection Service at Public Health
England (PHE)

The professor of public health and microbiology at the

University of Cambridge department of medicine told
MPs on the science and technology committee in March
that antibody testing kits would be available for mass
testing within days, but the tests failed quality checks.

Maria Zambon, director of Reference Microbiology Services at PHE and head of

the UK World Health Organization National Influenza Centre

Zambon is known as a thorough and extremely competent scientist. She is medically

qualified and a specialist on RNA viruses, antivirals and vaccines.

Meera Chand, consultant microbiologist at PHE

Chand worked on the UK‟s response to the Ebola epidemic and has expertise in
infectious diseases including influenza, diphtheria, scarlet fever and monkeypox.

Prof Charlotte Watts, chief scientific adviser to the Department for International
Development

Watts is on secondment from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
where she is a professor of social and mathematical epidemiology.
Prof John Aston, Home Office chief scientific adviser

A specialist in applied statistics, Aston joined the government in 2017 after stepping
down as a trustee of the Alan Turing Institute.

Angela McLean, professor of mathematical biology at Oxford University’s

department of zoology

McLean is the government‟s deputy chief scientific adviser and

chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence. She often speaks at the
No 10 press conferences and has said that the number of
hospital admissions “is not as bad as it could have been” had
lockdown not been put in place.

Ian Diamond, head of the Government Statistical Service and chief executive of
the UK Statistics Authority

The nation‟s statistician, Diamond prompted an investigation over a £282,000 payment

when he stepped down as principal at the University of Aberdeen.

Graham Medley, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School

of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Medley was one of the first scientists to elaborate on the herd immunity strategy. He
told Newsnight he‟d like to “put all the more vulnerable people into the north of Scotland
… everybody else into Kent and have a nice, big epidemic in Kent, so that everyone
becomes immune”.

Neil Ferguson, professor at Imperial College London faculty of medicine

Head of the Imperial College modelling team whose work

predicted half a million deaths in Britain and is credited with
prompting the government to impose the lockdown

Prof John Edmunds, specialist in design of control programmes against

infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

A leader in disease modelling and analysis, Edmunds warned that Italy‟s lockdown
might prove unsustainable and has argued against banning exercise outdoors on the
grounds that it has a negligible impact on the spread of the disease but benefits for
mental health and wellbeing.

James Rubin, reader in psychology of emerging health risks, Kings College

London
Rubin has studied how people respond to all manner of perceived health risks, from
nuclear meltdowns and the Ebola outbreak to mobile phone signals and novichok nerve
agents.

Brooke Rogers, professor of behavioural science and security at Kings College

London and chair of the Cabinet Office National Risk Assessment Behavioural
Science Advisory Group

Rogers specialises in threat and risk communication, and is a strong advocate of basing
interventions on evidence.

Peter Horby, former professor of infectious diseases and global health at

University of Oxford and chair of the government’s New and Emerging
Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag)

Horby ran Ebola trials in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and is
now heading up the major Recovery trial into drugs for coronavirus.

Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust

One of the few members of Sage who has made their

membership public. Farrar is a medical researcher and
former head of Oxford‟s clinical research unit in Ho Chi Minh
City. He has said Britain is on course to be among the worst,
if not the worst, affected country in Europe.

Andrew Rambaut, member of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology at Edinburgh

University’s school of biological sciences

A leading geneticist who specialises in the evolution of emerging human viruses. His
recent work showed that the coronavirus may have spread to humans via pangolins but
“clearly” wasn‟t created in a lab or purposefully manipulated.

Emma Reed, director of emergency response and health protection at the

Department of Health and Social Care

Reed worked on the government‟s Ebola response and has coordinated programmes to
reduce childhood obesity and diabetes.

Dr Edward Mullins, clinical adviser to the chief medical officer

Mullins is a clinical lecturer at Imperial College and an obstetrics and gynaecology

registrar at Queen Charlotte‟s and Chelsea hospital, London. He has previously worked
with Dame Sally Davies, England‟s former chief medical officer.
Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to the prime minister

Former director of the Vote Leave campaign who famously

advertised for “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to advise
government.

Ben Warner, Downing Street adviser on data science

Ben Warner The Vote Leave campaign‟s data specialist

joined No 10 after running the private election model that
predicted the 2019 landslide victory for the Tories.

Case For Transparency Over SAGE Has Never

Been Clearer
Emergency response body could have moved quicker at beginning of pandemic

Chief scientific officer Sir Patrick

Vallance, right, chairs Sage, and Prof
Chris Whitty, chief medical officer, also
attends, but little is known of other
members Photograph: Peter
Summers/Getty Images

As the coronavirus epidemic spilled

out of China and seeded outbreaks
around the world, the British
government looked to its Scientific
Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) for guidance on how best to handle the crisis.

The members of Sage are not a fixed group of wise academics that wait in their offices
for the hotline to ring. The makeup of the group depends on the emergency at hand and
is put together at the request of the Cabinet Office. At its best, it gives ministers direct
access to the finest minds in the country as it navigates an unfolding emergency.

Sage comprises two dozen or so experts. Today, two-thirds are men. Some members
are there to share advice from more specialised sub-groups. During the coronavirus
pandemic they include the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, or SPI-M,
made up of outbreak modellers from Imperial, Edinburgh and the London School of
Hygiene and Tropic Medicine among others.

Then there are the behavioural scientists who feed into Sage via the Scientific
Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavioural Science, or SPI-B. Another group that has a
representative on Sage is the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory
Group, or Nervtag, home to the virologists and respiratory disease specialists who study
the pathogens and their effects on the body.

The combined expertise, with senior medics, social scientists and outbreak specialists,
is intended to ensure that all aspects of the unfolding pandemic, from the nature of the
virus, to how people will react, are covered. Yet while Sage covers the academic bases,
it is unclear whether it has the breadth of voices it needs. Could there have been more
in the room, for example, who knew an emergency when they saw one?

More than a month ago, Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization‟s head of
emergencies, made it abundantly clear that governments had to act fast to beat the
virus. “The virus will always get you if you don‟t move quickly and you need to be
prepared,” he said. Speaking from experience with Ebola outbreaks, Ryan went on to
add: “Anyone who‟s involved in emergency response will know this.”

Britain did not move fast and was not prepared. As Jeremy Farrar, director of the
Wellcome Trust, one of the few members of Sage who is open about his membership,
has warned, Britain could have Europe‟s worst death toll.

Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a

member of Sage Photograph: Dave Guttridge/The
Francis Crick Institute

It is hard to look at the list and not feel it needs

more mathematical modellers or more
statisticians. Those disciplines are crucial for
pulling in data and working out how the virus is spreading, who it is killing and in what
numbers.

They are crucial too for cautiously predicting the future course of the disease, which in
turn is needed to work out plausible exit strategies and give early warning of a second
peak.

But what mattered at the start of the epidemic was to move fast, not wait until models
revealed the spectacular death toll the country faced if sat on its hands.
It is not the only area where expertise appears to be lacking. Sage is not responsible for
all of the government‟s advice: it goes to Cobra where ministers weigh it up against
other considerations.

But beyond the clear failure to act fast, two areas that have defined Britain‟s ham-fisted
response to the coronavirus pandemic are the inability to test at scale and devastating
shortcomings in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Where are the experts that could have organised companies to ramp up testing sooner,
as is only now coming online? And who would have looked at the PPE stockpile and
where the equipment had to go and seen a thorny problem that needed swift and
decisive action?

The members of Sage are impressive individuals. But with the government insisting it is
following the science, as if science offers only one route through this, the case for
transparency has never been clearer.

‘It’s Kind Of A Rule Of Thumb’: Adviser Reveals

UK Govt’s 2-Meter Coronavirus Distance
Instruction Based On ‘Muddy Science’
25 Apr, 2020

The British public cannot be expected to just do as they're told by the government for
long, since the guidelines are very disruptive and not as scientifically sound as officials
make them seem to be, a government adviser said.

One example would be the instruction for people to keep two meters apart from other
people to reduce the risk of infection, advice which was “conjured out of nowhere,”
according to professor Robert Dingwall.

“There's never been a scientific basis for two meters, it’s kind of a rule of thumb.
But it's not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is
founded upon,” he told BBC‟s Radio 4. Evidence exists that observing a one meter
distance would be beneficial during an epidemic, but even that “comes out of indoor
studies in clinical and experimental settings.”

Dingwall acknowledged that in this case as in many others “the science is muddy” and
doesn't point “in a single direction in quite the way that it’s represented as doing.” But
his concern is that it would be harder to convince the public to comply with government
advice, if the scientific basis for it is questionable.
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious
damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the
population,” he said.

I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that
really do not have an evidence base.

The interview, aired on Saturday morning, comes as No. 10 is grappling with a scandal
involving Dominic Cummings, the chief political adviser for Prime Minister Boris
Johnson, and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). Cummings and a
data scientist, who worked for him on the Vote Leave campaign during the Brexit
referendum, attended a number of SAGE meetings as early as in January, a Guardian
expose has revealed.

The presence of politically-affiliated figures at gatherings of a body that keeps the list of
its members secret, and is supposed to provide purely scientific recommendations,
raised awkward questions about how it had helped shape the nation‟s response to the
Covid-19 epidemic. Downing Street said Cummings and his associate, Ben Warner, did
go to SAGE meetings, but were not part of it, contrary to what the newspaper implied.

Dingwall, who belongs to the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory
Group (NERVTAG), a body that feeds into SAGE, spoke to Radio 4 before the scandal
broke. But he expressed skepticism about the anonymity of SAGE members, saying it
makes it hard to judge their scientific expertise.

“There may be an issue with SAGE about the range of voices that are heard there.
There is a slight tendency among eminent scientists to think that they can be experts on
everything,” he explained.