@tobee
And *@inquietant* you mention raw data access. Sounds great doesn't it? But of limited value of you can't analyse it. To possibly phd level. In that field.
I'm a lawyer, and part of the skills set is the ability to understand and critically analyse evidence from any given field to a standard sufficient to enable meaningful debate quickly.
So yes, I often do read through scientific or medical papers and underrstand them. I have a leftover comprehensive knowledge of antibiotics, for instance, from my days in medical negligence, that bamboozles a couple of GP friends.
I find it frustrating when other people, including scientists and doctors, confuse data with evidence. And then use scaremongering to fill in the gaps in that evidence and/or to excuse excessively risk averse decision making. There is something about the nhs in this country that encourages medics to become overtly risk averse, sometimes to the point of encouraging lack of exercise and socialisation necessary fir healthy human lives. Which is the situation we are stuck in in the UK now.
Let's not forget too that Professor Neil Ferguson is a physisist and that one of the leading viriologists in the world, Sir Hugh Pennington, has been completely sudelined during this in favour of a dentist and a nurse, presumably because he is not an Snp supporter.
What I can tell you is that the government has employed purposive thinking throughout (in other words, they find the scientific expert with the viewpoint that supports their policies) and constantly refers to "the science" (which varies) rather than the evidence. I can also tell you that the death rates do not justify the prolonged loss of human rights that we see in Europe in international law, and that the European response in particular is marked by competition between governments to appear to be seen to be the most caring in terms of "saving lives". We are well outwith the parameters used in Article 15 of the ECHR permitting derogations, along with the Syraceuse Principles. It's all about politicians being seen to remain electable.
In Scotland, for much of last summer, we had the farcical situation of swimming pools and gyms being closed while pubs remained open and you could meet strangers as long as you were sitting down for a drink. The Scottish Government were presumably aware of how risky this was, as they announced that singing, laughing and shouting in pubs was banned). This was the cause of many subsequent infections. Meanwhile, football matches and training were permitted while all other competitive sport in Scotland was banned (although it was taking place in the rest of Europe). It made no sense and youre not telling me that that was nothing more than a politically motivated policy designed to keep the ruling party in power. That is not an example of evidence-based decision making on public health grounds. It is an a example of unaccountable abuse of power.