This is another example of allowing political power to define the domain of objectivity versus subjectivity.Exactly the problem with the disapproval of news night.
Power is being allowed to define what is a fact and what is not a fact and therefore what is the territory of those experts qualified to talk about facts.
It would be entirely proper from a scientific perspective to worry out loud about the effect of the architect of a set of rules disobeying them on everyone else’s compliance and the effect of that on the trajectory of infections.
One obviously could not predict doom with certainty but at the same time there is a definite risk that needs to be talked about. Disallowing uncensored scientific rumination contaminates the credibility with which the expert opines on other matters that are allowed.
It is moot whether it is tolerable or advisable to operate as an expert under such conditions when you are not able to comment openly on the efficacy of lockdown implementation. One could argue it is an abuse of the quasi outsider 'unblemished expert' status to continue.
Recent analogy is the discovery that Cummings might have influenced the course of SAGE meetings, making the declaration that 'we followed the science' to be hollow. Scientific advisors can't represent the science if they are constrained from speaking about it.
Scientific advisors constrained from talking about all the science are really just regular civil servants posing as scientists for the beautification of the government's PR strategy regarding its policy and performance.
Recall, going back, that speculation about the likelihood of a lockdown holding was a key part of the initial policy stance [don't lockdown too early], that unhappy conclusion referring back to studies of different outbreaks in different cities.
It would've been relevant, if unnecessarily cynical at the time to speculate further that compliance would depend on whether public governmental figures complied, and did not lie when one of their number was noted not to have. ['of course this won't happen, no need to discuss'].
If as @bbcnickrobinson is tweeting the advisors have been gagged / refused to support official interpretation of Cummings' behaviour... 1) if gagged they should not continue and must resign; 2) not supporting is not enough, because silence is ambiguous.
@lewis_goodall making the same point more compactly:
