Thread by @philipcball

Starting in 5 minutes on @BBCRadio4: was the UK's Covid response really "led by the science" - and what could that really mean?
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…

Things we had to omit included:
Jonathan Van-Tam showing in a press briefing how questions about the Cummings affair *should* have been answered - that is, not with the pretence that they were "political".

The mysterious dropping of chief nurse Ruth May from a press briefing after she made it clear in a rehearsal that she did not intend to ignore questions about Cummings.

More from Stephen Reicher on why the Cummings affair mattered.

(See here: newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…)

Helen Whately's unguarded comment in a Sky News interview that yes, actually, she *could* "pin it on the scientists".

Richard Horton giving further examples of why he felt the relationship of the chief scientists and the government had been "strangely collusive".

More on the pros and cons of Independent Sage. (Personally I think it's a good and necessary thing, though questions were raised about the name, and whether it perpetuates the idea that science advice can be "pure".)

Paul Nurse explaining how his offer to make the Crick Institute available to process tests met with a deafening silence from the government, even though we lacked the capacity we needed.

More from David King on why it is so important that the chief scientific adviser be seen as independent and have the freedom to speak directly to the press and public.

Suffice it to say, the director's cut was an hour and ten minutes, and it was agonizing cutting it down to size.

One other: I wanted to mention Matt Hancock retrospectively revising the date of lockdown, as an illustration of where we've ended up in terms of respect for facts. (Vallance too became a bit fluid about when Sage recommended it.)