This would have been the moment to resign. That he didn’t allows the govt to imply his blessing.
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1412083010980225031
That should read ‘a moment’. There have been several policy disasters that he’s helped launder with his continuity of service.
He and others might think 'this is too critical a time for a key person to leave the operation; much better to influence policy for the better within'.
But there are probably many others who can replace him at the podium, talking authoritatively through slides of data. Incumbents must not over-estimate their own criticality. Influencing from within has anyway run its course and failed.
An argument [see replies] for him not resigning is that he would be replaced by a more pliant appointee, and that science would lose a seat at the table to influence policy.
But if science is not influencing policy [good case can be made that is the case for the 19 July release] no influence is lost, and what is gained is that a political decision cannot be presented as a scientific one and will be revealed to be what it is.
The govt will say 'we are following the science' and everyone will know that they are not from Whitty's resignation letter.
I actually think these hints at criticism do as much harm as good:
https://twitter.com/ThatMarkElliott/status/1412337427415449602
The risk is people think 'you see, he can speak his mind, so if he really disagreed with the policy of opening up he would say so wouldn't he, so perhaps they are following the science.'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
