Source · Select Committees · Health and Social Care Committee
Recommendation 155
155
Rejected
Science proceeds through challenge and disputation, and new theories are tested unflinchingly against evidence.
Conclusion
Science proceeds through challenge and disputation, and new theories are tested unflinchingly against evidence. Yet Ministers and other advisers reported that they felt it difficult to challenge the views of their official scientific advisers. Those in Government have a duty to question and probe the assumptions behind any scientific advice given, particularly in a national emergency, but there is little evidence sufficient challenge took place. However, even when UK policy had changed to bring in a comprehensive national lockdown, the role of non-pharmaceutical interventions against covid-19 was complex, inconsistent and opaque for most of the rest of 2020.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government implicitly rejects the committee's conclusion about the lack of challenge to scientific advice and the inconsistency of non-pharmaceutical interventions. It asserts that NPIs were key, decision-making was evidence-based, and quick decisive action was taken.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government · verbatim extract
Rejected
Non-pharmaceutical interventions have been a key element of the government’s response to COVID-19. At the outbreak of the pandemic, the government carefully monitored the data, and our decision-making has always been informed by science and evidence. We took quick and decisive action when we needed to.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗