Since the impact of coronavirus began to be felt in the UK a lot of controversy has surrounded the government’s decisions.
Have they moved quick enough? Is the advice they’ve been taking being directed by people who aren’t experts in public health or medicine?
But after a careless statements about if the government planned to get people infected to build up “herd immunity” - they don’t - people were concerned.
Today the government has published a range of the scientific advice for people to read - so you can see the recommendations independent scientists are giving them.
Most of it comes to the government through the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which provides ministers and officials with evidence-based scientific advice in emergencies.
SAGE relies on external scientific advice, including advice from expert groups.
Government Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance defended the UK's response as he put the advice into the public domain.
He said: "This is an incredibly fast-moving, developing situation and as part of our collective efforts to give the clearest and most reliable scientific advice, SAGE has and continues to draw upon a huge range of experts and a huge range of evidence.
"The UK is home to experts who are at the forefront of their chosen fields and we are making full use of their expertise to grow our understanding of COVID-19 as we work tirelessly to tackle this disease.
"The collective evidence we have published today has played a considerable role in shaping our recommendations."
So here is what we learned from reading it.
(And if you’re really curious you can read it yourself here )
Why schools are closed and why they might be closed for a while
From today schools will be closed - except for the most vulnerable children and those whose parents are key workers. But the scientific advice suggests that they might end up being closed for longer than we expected.
In advice given in early March scientists told the government that “school closures are likely to impact transmission, although significantly less than with flu”.
They warned that “mass school closures are unlikely to reduce the final size of the epidemic and are unlikely to delay the peak by more than 3 weeks”
But they also suggested that to get the most from closing schools that “longer school closures are likely to be more effective then shorter ones and are less sensitive to timing relative to the epidemic peak”.
So the disruption may go on longer than some are expecting in classrooms.
Social isolation rules may need to be in place for at least a year
Strict rules on avoiding social contact may need to last "at least most of a year", the government's scientific advisors have revealed.
The Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling has published advice which shows the vast scale of coronavirus "social distancing" measures into the future.
The advice was agreed between experts on Monday, three days before Boris Johnson claimed Britain could "turn the tide" on Covid-19 within 12 weeks.
The scientists said current rules on avoiding unnecessary travel, social gatherings and pubs, bars and restaurants, could be lifted intermittently for a short while at a time.
However, that would then allow the virus to surge again so restrictions would need to be put back in place.
If this happened, the entire period of on-off restrictions would need to be spread over "at least most of a year" - with at least six of the 12 months having the restrictions "on".
The advice is not binding on the government, or official advice to the public. It is instead a summary of what the government's advisors believe at that moment in time.
This epidemic could take 3-5 months to hit its peak
Boris Johnson has said that the peak could be behind us in the next 12 weeks - and while the scientists are slightly less optimistic, they don’t disagree.
One paper says that while the duration will “be longer than for a typical influenza pandemic” that the peak should hit around “3 – 5 months after the establishment of widespread sustained transmission”.
Or around 12 to 20 weeks from now.
There will be some variation across the UK - with London understood to be ahead of the rest of the country - and this could be as much as “around 4 – 6 weeks”.
Eight percent of people infected could end up in hospital
Part of the social distancing strategy is to try and delay cases to avoid overwhelming the NHS. In early March scientists said that as many as one in 50 under-50s who get the virus could end up in hospital.
For the over-80s this rises to 44%.
The estimate is that 8% of those infected overall could end up in hospital.
Once in hospital you are statistically much higher risk than in the rest of the population.
“Current estimates are that mortality rates are 12% for hospitalised people, from 4% in the under-50s to 20% of over-80s, with 50% mortality in those hospitalised who require invasive ventilation,” one report warns.
But mortality rates on average might be slightly lower than they were first reported as being after the rise of the virus in China.
According to government’s scientific advice: “Our best estimate of the infection fatality rate is in the range of 0.5% to 1%, ranging from 0.01% in the under 20s to 8% in the over 80s.
Infected is from 2% in the under 50s to 44% of over 80s. This is equivalent to 8% of those infected overall.”
Isolation will hit the poorest familes hardest
If you are showing symptoms you - and everyone in your houshold - is expected to self isolate for 14 days. But government advice says for some people it is going to difficult.
Household isolation will ”have a disproportionate impact on poorer families” - including through increased mental health problems that already hit people in poverty harder it warns.
People may also become sick of the advice and take part in “displacement” activity like meeting in parks or holding a house party, they warned.
What role are behavioural scientists playing in the advice?
A lot of controversy surrounded the government consulting behavioural scientists when shaping their strategy.
In a paper from March 14 they aimed to set out what is and isn’t part of the behavioural scientists' jobs when they are advising the Chief Science and Chief Medical Officers.
It stressed that the behavioural scientists should “not be asked to comment, and has not commented, on what interventions are effective or when they should be triggered”.
“Instead, the group is asked to provide advice aimed at anticipating and helping people adhere to interventions that are recommended by medical or epidemiological experts.”
Large scale rioting is unlikely and people will respond kindly
Behavioural scientists were asked to offer advice on how they think the virus may affect public order or crime.
They agreed that “large scale rioting is unlikely and rarely seen in these circumstances” and that “acts of altruism will likely predominate”.
But they warned the government that it needed to be clear about the advice it was giving, and why it was giving it.
They did warn that in some scenarios there may be an increase in “opportunistic crime”.
“If there are low numbers of police due to workplace absences, there could be a perception that the police have become disempowered.
“This has the potential to exacerbate what might otherwise have been a minor issue, e.g. lead to a rise in opportunistic crime by those who are already antagonistic towards the police.
“To avoid this, police actions should as far as possible be focused on dialogue and facilitation of legitimate public needs (support rather than control).”
Why the government is asking people to avoid bars and shops - and why they might close them
While the advice says that the effect of closing large scale events - like football matches - might be minimal it is much clearer on why the government is asking us to avoid the pub.
Smaller gatherings - in pubs, clubs or homes - are “higher risk”.
Scientists have said that “smaller gatherings happen more frequently than larger ones so the cumulative effect is larger.
“The risk of infection to an individual from attending public gatherings depends on the length of time they spend in close proximity to other people.
The key factor isn’t the size of the event, but the number of people you come into close contact with; duration of those contacts; and how close these contacts are.
Family gatherings they warn are “particularly high risk as they bring people into closer contact” as are religious services with any physical contact involved.
The language used is important
The language used by the government matters.
When telling the over-70s or those with pre-existing conditions to self-isolate, the government has used the term “shielding themselves”.
A note from behavioural scientists explains why.
It says: “An appropriate term is needed. Cocooning feels patronising. Isolation has negative overtones for older adults”
After being infected it takes a while for symptoms to show
As of early March scientists believed that the incubation period of coronavirus - ie the delay between an individual becoming infected and developing symptoms - is an average of 5 days, but can range between one and 11 days.
This is approximately twice as long as for influenza.
The maximum incubation period is used to define the period required for isolation, currently believed to be 14 days.
