A timeline of the released minutes details the group’s evolving thinking and actions
On 29 May, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies made the precedented move of releasing meeting minutes while an emergency is ongoing and the group still convening, following months of criticisms over its secrecy.
The minutes provide a first-of-a-kind insight into the advisory group’s thinking on Covid-19.
Here’s a timeline of key mentions of research funders, universities and—Sage itself.
ON UNIVERSITIES
10th Meeting: 25 February
Sage discussed a paper modelling four non-pharmaceutical interventions: university and school closures, home isolation, household quarantine and social distancing, including use of interventions in combination. All measures require implementation for a significant duration in order to be effective. Any combination of measures would slow but not halt an epidemic.
16th Meeting: 16 March
Sage to discuss at its next meeting how school closures (all setting for under-18s) could affect NHS critical care capacity, considering in particular: additional epidemiological benefits of school and university closures over and above HMG measures to be announced (SPI-M).
DfE to work with DHSC and PHE on specific guidance for schools and universities, including personal hygiene measures and methods to apply social distancing within these settings building on what has been done in other places (e.g. Singapore).
ON FUNDERS
4th Meeting: 4 February
Action: UK science coordination group for WN-CoV, which includes GCSA, CMO (NIHR), PHE, DfID, FCO and research funders, to consider whether the UK can accelerate diagnostic capability to include WN-CoV alongside regular influenza testing before the onset of the winter influenza season.
8th Meeting: 18 February
An access committee, coordinated by UKRI, is being set up to balance the needs of the scientific community and consider what will have a demonstrable impact on controlling the epidemic.
21st Meeting: 31 March
Sage agreed that the Royal Society’s international work should be supported, and that coordination between this and other international work led by FCO/DfID is important.
27th Meeting: 21 April
UKRI (and other research funders) to consider funding of longitudinal research studies on immunity.
28th Meeting: 23 April
Sage asked that funders, including UKRI, actively engage in the Health Data Research (UK) process when making funding decisions on Sage priority questions relevant to health data.
Action: UKRI to publish ‘Research Questions for Covid-19’ on its Covid-19 web portal, subject to Sage secretariat confirmation; UKRI to liaise with John Aston and Andrew Morris on how to link questions in Health Data Research paper to its Covid-19 web portal.
29th Meeting: 28 April
UKRI to consider funding research on Covid-19 risk factors, including obesity and sex, by the end of the week.
33rd Meeting: 5 May
Nosocomial Working Group and Environmental Measures Group to work together to consider key questions and data (including international comparators) required to understand more about the detail of transmission in different situations and feed these to UKRI/NIHR for potential research call into Covid-19 transmission mechanisms (including in children and different contact jobs).
ON SAGE
2nd Meeting: 28 January
A separate group has been convened outside Sage to consider how UK science can contribute to the international effort to tackle the outbreak.
16th Meeting: 16 March
Sage agreed to publish a chronological set of papers and other documents which have informed the questions it has considered and its advice to date.
It is important to demonstrate the uncertainties scientists have faced, how understanding of Covid-19 has developed over time, and the science behind the advice at each stage.
Action: Sage secretariat to explore option of launching release of Sage materials at Science Media Centre, involving several Sage participants.
17th Meeting: 18 March
Sage discussed plans to release the academic models underpinning Sage and SPI-M discussions and judgements. Modellers agreed that code would become public but emphasised that the effort to do this immediately would distract from other analyses. It was agreed that code should become public as soon as practical, and SPI-M would return to Sage with a proposal on how this would be achieved.
29th Meeting: 28 April
Sage welcomed and endorsed plans to increase transparency, including releasing names of consenting participants. Advice on security and media handling will be provided.
Ian Boyd suggested ways Sage might operate more effectively, in his role as an independent challenge function.
Action: Sage secretariat to circulate advice on personal and cyber security and on responding to media queries to Sage participants by 30 April, ahead of putting attendance details into the public domain. Sage participants to provide contact details for security information.
34th Meeting: 7 May
Sage noted the important contribution made by Neil Ferguson over the course of the response and agreed the importance of continuing to draw upon the work of the Imperial Collegel London team.
Sage re-emphasised that its own focus should always be on providing clear scientific advice to government and the principles behind that advice.
A better mechanism for filtering commissions and requests for Sage’s advice is needed to ensure that participants of Sage are only required to respond urgently to requests when those matters specifically related to an urgent science question. This will help the resilience of participants of Sage who will continue to work under intense pressure on the Covid-19 response for many more months. Commissions should be coordinated by the Sage Secretariat.
The need for pastoral support to be available to participants was noted. Ian Boyd is an independent participant whose role includes providing this type of support.