Sagacious?

People in the UK are agitating for an inquiry into that country's responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Although things have vastly improved with the vaccine roll-out, the UK still managed to combine a disproportionately high death-rate with a very substantial economic 'hit'. The UK's PM has now promised an official inquiry will 'start' in Spring 2022. Some people, however, believe this is too slow. They claim we need to urgently find out what mistakes were made in the early responses (or lack of responses?) to the pandemic. That knowledge, they argue, will help the UK avoid repeating mistakes. Science writer, Philip Ball has argued that scientists could start their own collective inquiry now, to produce these answers (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/13/uk-scientists-covid-inquiry-boris-johnson-pandemic). Scientists are not, however, elected and they don't (and shouldn't?) hold the levers of power. They are also (in spite of what people might think?) far from being a homogeneous, completely unbiased bunch. The UK government largely got its scientific advice from its Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). SAGE is a neat acronym but, I think, it (inadvertently?) inflates the characteristics of the scientists on its panel. An actual sage is "someone venerated for the possession of wisdom, judgement and experience". Although the members of SAGE are a pretty well-qualified group, they are government appointed and their role is to advise. They should not, in my view, be regarded as fonts of all knowledge. The fact that scientists don't always agree, is also clearly illustrated by the creation of an Independent SAGE organisation. This is a group of UK scientists, also well qualified in aspects of the pandemic, but unlinked to the government. They were often willing to supply alternative comment on pandemic-related issues. I very much suspect that scientists, in their various societies, are already evaluating what went right and what went wrong, in the country's first attempts to deal with a novel pandemic. This should not, in my view, be regarded as a replacement for a proper inquiry. Official inquiries can be irritating, long drawn out affairs, with little lasting impact. They do, however, come to fixed conclusions (like courts) and have to power to compel people to give evidence. Science is, in contrast, always evolving (it's never fixed in the same way) and scientists can choose to comment or not. I would just make a few comments on the science-government interface. I do think that governments should explore ways of getting their advice from across the scientific spectrum. Otherwise, there is a tendency to 'run with' ideas (e.g. 'herd immunity') that fit their political preferences. It might also be an idea to a have more scientifically literate folk in government and the civil service. Such people are vanishingly rare. A surprisingly high number of UK MPs graduated from Oxford University in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Scientific advice must be less effective when it is given to people who don't fully (or want to?) understand it or its limitations!