I think the current government make decisions based on focus group surveys - thats what Cummings, etc are there for, and this is more to do with preventing the current government from losing popularity and being blamed by the media for "excess deaths" than informed decison-making.
Like many lawyers, I'm concerned at how human rights and basic freedoms have been swept aside so easily. We now seem to have no proper separation of powers in this country and the constitution isn't working particularly well. I don't really think that doctors and scientists should be allowed to inform policy too much - statistical modelling is only as good as the data put in and the algorithms used, and they always seem to produce ridiculously inaccurate predictions. Likewise, some doctors, particularly those who seem to worm their way into government advisor roles, are ridiculously risk averse and would love to lock everyone away semi-permanently, so there is no risk of any injury, illness or accident whatsoever.
Reminds me of the famous orthopeadic surgeon in London's approach, who is often quoted in such as the Daily Mail saying things like women are too fragile to do sport - 7 years ago, he examined my MRI scan and informed me that I would have to stop doing all sport because of my knees and that, apparently, I couldn't use stairs any more. 5 months later, I comleted an Ironman triathlon, last year I completed 11 shorter distance triathlons and I run 5 days per week!
Anyway, I digress, but it just shows you how ridiculously risk averse some medics are.
There are guidelines written into the European Convention on Human Rights and Syraceuse Principles regarding the conditions under which human rights can be removed by governments, and without going into detail, the government is now in breach of those and has been since the crisis in the NHS eased/was never as serious as people thought.
There is simply not enough justification for restricting peoples' liberty in this way. The government is required by international law and by the Human Rights Act in the UK to be reactionary, not precautionary, in measures it takes - ie it must wait for the evidence to show that restrictions must be imposed, it should not impose restrictions on peoples freedoms just in case.
And that just in case is very much about protecting political reputations and future electability. This stop start system is damaging people and the economy and it isn't stopping the virus because the Swedish example indicates that it is less costly, in terms of lives in the long run, to let it runs its course.
At this rate too, people are going to be so unexposed to general viruses such as flu that excess deaths from it are going to balloon. And already in the last weeks, we have had 11 times as many people dieing from flu and pneumonia than from Covid-19.