Scientists hit back at Sunak over lockdown claims

Mr Sunak said he had often been a lone voice of resistance to lockdown measures around the cabinet table. 

“We didn’t talk at all about missed (doctors) appointments, or the backlog building in the NHS in a massive way. That was never part of it,” he said.

The meetings were “literally me around that table, just fighting”, which “was incredibly uncomfortable every single time”.

At one meeting he raised the impact on children’s education: “I was very emotional about it. I was like ‘Forget about the economy. Surely we can all agree that kids not being in school is a major nightmare’, or something like that."

He says the remark was met with silence. 

Prof John Edmunds, head of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the former Chancellor was not a bystander at Cabinet. 

He said: “It is not well understood, but Sage’s role was quite narrow: to review and assess the scientific evidence to help inform the decision-makers. It did not consider the economic aspects – it was not asked to do so and was not constituted to do so.

“There may be some truth to the argument that the scientific evidence often outweighed the economic data; however, the answer is not to get less scientific evidence (or ignore some scientific evidence), but to build up a clearer picture of the economic and wider impact of different policies, using the best evidence available at the time. 

“I am not aware of this happening in a systematic, open, peer-reviewed way.

“Where, for instance, was the equivalent of Sage and all its subgroups on the economic side? Was there an army of economists in universities and research institutes across the country working night and day to collect, sift, analyse and project the possible impact of different policies? 

“And if not, why not? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Sunak could have set up such a system, but did not.”

Other scientists on Sage pointed out that it was their decision to advise, and up to Mr Sunak and colleagues to take decisions. 

Prof Graham Medley, a member of Sage and chair of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Modelling said: “Government have the power, so if one member of cabinet thinks that scientific advice was too ‘empowered’ then it is a criticism of their colleagues rather than the scientists.”

Prof Ian Boyd, another Sage member, rejected the claim he and colleagues had not thought through the consequences of lockdown. 

He said: “Sage was established to provide advice based on scientific evidence and inference about how best to tackle the pandemic. The advice was based on the information available at the time.

“Retrospective analysis of that advice needs to take account of what was known, and not known, at the time the advice was provided.

"Especially in the early stages of the pandemic, an immense amount was not known, and this meant that risks were high, and therefore precaution was called for.

“Sage did not make decisions, it tried to reflect its uncertainties in its advice and it worked by consensus.

"Members were acutely aware of the trade-offs associated with implementing specific actions.

"To the extent that it was possible with the information available at the time, these trade-offs were included within the uncertainty expressed in the advice.”

Boris Johnson’s former chief aide Dominic Cummings said the interview was "dangerous rubbish." 

Taking to Twitter he said: “The Sunak interview is dangerous rubbish, reads like a man whose epicly bad campaign has melted his brain & he’s about to quit politics.”

Mr Cummings - who has become one of the Prime Minister’s fiercest critics since leaving No 10 - also said the ex-Chancellor was being unfair on Mr Johnson.
In an interview with the BBC’s World at One, Mr Sunak denied he would quit politics if he loses the leadership campaign. 

He said this was “absolutely not” the case.