It’s been pretty obvious for a while that an earlier lockdown would’ve reduced the number of deaths. Scientists whose advice was followed at the time find it much easier to acknowledge that their position has changed than Ministers. /1
Clear that the rate of doubling of the infection was faster than appreciated by SAGE. It is part of the ‘scientific method’ to revise opinions in the light of emerging evidence. Scientists now doing that. /2
It’d be the grown up answer but much harder for Ministers to say ‘we made the decision on the basis of the evidence at the time and the advice we received’. The likely response - will you apologise? do you have thousands of deaths on your conscience? shouldn’t you resign /3
The other options? Flatly deny that we should’ve locked down earlier. Looks implausible. Evade the question? ‘Too early to say’. In truth, it isn’t too early to say and it looks, well, evasive. /4
I’ve been critical of the Government’s performance but I have sympathy for them on this point. On the timing of the lockdown, the SAGE minutes show they did follow the scientific advice. But it’s a great pity that Ministers don’t believe they can acknowledge the reality. /5
But Ministers will worry that acknowledging that with the benefit of hindsight we would’ve reduced the number of deaths if we’d locked down earlier would result in them being judged very harshly. They’d be accused of being wicked and having deaths on their consciences. /6
To put it another way, they don’t think a mature answer would get a mature response. They may well be right but at some point they’ll have to acknowledge the obvious. /END
