The UK government continues to claim that its pandemic response is science-led. A key aspect of this science is the behavioural science. Let’s review how that's played out. The government:
1. Delayed lockdown, costing thousands of lives, while briefing journalists that this delay policy was based on behavioural science -- specifically, a phenomenon called "behavioural fatigue" that doesn’t seem to exist in the scientific literature.
2. Accompanied its message about the importance of handwashing with anecdotes from the PM about shaking hands with all of the Covid patients he met.
3. Replaced a clear “Stay Home” message with an ambiguous “Stay Alert” message.
4. Abandoned the consistency and equity of the health messaging in the service of retaining an advisor who flouted lockdown rules.
Is this consistent with the advice of SPI-B? What would it take for members of SPI-B to resign from the scientific advisory committee? Whose interests are they serving by remaining in place?
Scientists have responsibilities. By and large, they are highly trusted by society. That’s why our incompetent leaders are so keen to claim at every opportunity that they are science-led.
From what I can see, behavioural scientists participating in SPI-B are providing cover to ministers without meaningfully influencing policy. Isn't it time that the committee resigns en masse, and issues a statement repudiating the government’s failure to be led by science?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
