Source · Select Committees · Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
Recommendation 175
175
We also consider that the Government’s scientific advisers were too passive in accepting assurances that...
Conclusion
We also consider that the Government’s scientific advisers were too passive in accepting assurances that the clinical operational capacity of Public Health England could not be changed. Even in March 2020, Professor Neil Ferguson explained that “much 254 Q129 255 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 25 March 2020, HC (2019–21) 136, Q121 256 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 21 July 2020, HC (2019–21) 136, Q1176 257 GOV.UK, ‘Everyone in the UK with symptoms now eligible for coronavirus tests’, accessed 17 September 2021 258 Oral evidence taken before the Health and Social Care Committee on 17 March 2020, HC (2019–21) 36, Q78 259 See, for example: Q825, Q1256, Q1264 and Q1280 Coronavirus: lessons learned to date 63 more widespread testing” was required but that SAGE had received “very clear messages from PHE that we would have nowhere near enough testing capacity.”260 It would have been quite possible for SAGE to advise that a significant increase in testing capacity was needed. It may be that continued adherence to the early four-stage flu plan contributed to this absence of effective scientific pressure for more testing capacity.
Government Response
A response document is linked to this report, dated 30 June 2022. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗