Talk:Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies

Details of membership
I have removed the claim that membership of SAGE is "not officially secret"; no valid citation has been provided for that claim, and the citation that was provided does not support it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio
I've just removed the following:
 * The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency and typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry.

As the sentence is a direct unattributed lift from the source. Although the webpage is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, failure to attribute according to the requirements at the licensing page creates a violation of their copyright. We must avoid doing that, and the simplest way is to summarise the information in our own words, just as we do normally for any source. --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Minutes!
https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?fbclid=IwAR0erf9tUFogkKknmRqsPLy7h1RA7bnzrISUdxSHChMFoj7YJIs4HkIWl2M&organisations%5B%5D=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies&page=2&parent=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies

13 Feb


 * Sage says that banning mass gathers has no effect given other meetings in pubs etc: "There is no current evidence to suggest prevention of mass gatheringsis effective in limiting transmission. Public actions in the absence of a mass gathering could have comparableimpacts(e.g. watching a football match in a pub instead of a stadiumas likely to spread the disease)." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888775/S0375_Seventh_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19_.pdf
 * Travel restrictions in UK not worthwhile "SAGE concluded that travel restrictions within the UK, unless draconianand fully adhered to, would not be effective in limiting transmission. They would also be ineffective if Covid-19 cases were already established in the UK."
 * Sage encourages misleading messaing to increase adherence: "National messaging should beclear and definitive: if such messaging is presented as both precautionary and sufficient, it will reduce the likelihood of the public adopting further unnecessary or contradictory behaviours"
 * Sage encourages a messaging of personal responsible to increase adherence: "At this stage, public messaging should stress the importance of personal responsibility and responsibility to others, in order to drive positive public behaviours."
 * Group decided that they should create: "SPI-B(Scientific Pandemic Influenza–Behaviour) sub-group to be established to provide behavioural science advice via SAGE throughout this incident "

18 Feb

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888776/S0376_Eighth_SAGE_meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus__Covid-19__.pdf


 * PHE is responsible for international sources: "ACTION: PHE to check and confirm it is receiving data from all available international sources; other SAGE participants to advise PHE of available sources it might have missed"
 * PHE turning SPI-M advice into policy and making decisions about monitoring "PHE to present a paper at the next SAGE meeting, informed by SPI-M, proposing trigger points for when the current approach to monitoring and contact tracing should be reviewed, revised or stopped"

25 Feb


 * Sage considers isolation: "SAGE discussed a paper modelling four non-pharmaceutical interventions:university and school closures, home isolation, household quarantine and social distancing, includinguse of interventions in combination."
 * Sage encourages presenting interventions as mandatory: "Public messaging isl ikely to be most effective if recommendations to act are definitive,rather than presented as optional or voluntary measures."
 * Advice on communicating rationale for decisions "The UK government will need to clearly communicate its rationale for its decisions. This is particularly important wherethe UK responsediffers to other countries’."
 * Encourages candor: "There is commonly adifferencebetween the evidence for and public perception of what constituteeffectivemeasures to manage spread. The aim of any measuresintroducedshould be communicated early, clearlyand consistentlyto improve publicunderstanding andexpectations. "
 * Home working and social distancing planned at this point: "Advice to businesses to begin preparing for measures such as homeworking and social distancing would give owners time to plan and demonstrate that the UK has a strategy and is adhering to it."
 * Encourages sense of collectivism: "Public compliance is likely to beenhanced when a sense of collectivism or community spirit is promoted."

27 Feb

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888778/S0379_Eleventh_SAGE_meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus__Covid-19__.pdf


 * "Mitigations can be expected to change the shape of the epidemic curve or the timing of a first or secondpeak,but are not likely to reduce the overall number of total infections" give advice that the number of infections cannot be changed by intevention".
 * "The optimal shape of the epidemic curve will differ according to sectoral or organisational priorities."

3 March

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888780/S0380_Twelfth_SAGE_Meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus_.pdf


 * "SAGE noted the importance of assessing the wider health implications of these interventions, e.g. the effect of self-isolation on mental health." mental health is important
 * Suggest home isolation of infected individuals "There is epidemiological and modelling data to support implementation –within 1-2 weeks–of individual homeisolation (symptomatic individualsto stay at homefor 14days) and whole family isolation(fellow household members of symptomaticindividualsto stay athome for 14 daysafter last family member becomes unwell)to delayCovid-19 spread, modify the epidemic peakandreduce mortality rates."
 * "The pointin timeat which measures should be lifted will depend on epidemiological evidence, but is likely to beat least 12 weeks after initial implementation."

16 March

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888784/S0384_Sixteenth_SAGE_meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus__Covid-19__.pdf


 * Sage notes that household isolation increased the risk of infecion: "The risk of one person withina householdpassing the infection to others within the household is estimated to increase during household isolation, from 50%to 70%"

20 March


 * "Based on limited available evidence, SAGE considers that the UK is 2 to 4 weeks behind Italy in terms of the epidemic curve. The consensus is thatgrowth of the UK epidemic is tracking at the same rate as in other countries"
 * "Social distancing based on a)places of leisure (restaurants, bars, entertainment and public spaces) andb)indoor workplacesdepend on compliance with the guidance issued earlier in the week. We do not yet have reliable compliance dataand therefore collecting reliable compliance data should be a priority."
 * If the interventions are required,it would be better to act early

23 March

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888787/S0386_Eighteenth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19_.pdf

Can't copy and paste :(


 * R is higher than previously thought

--Talpedia (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Simplify article?
We currently have four big lists of meeting attendees for April 2020, May 2020, July 2020 and March 2021. However, almost complete details on attendance are available here and in the published minutes for each individual meeting. Can we cut at least three quarters of these lists and point readers to those sources? Bondegezou (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Detail and representativeness
At present the bullet point on SPI-MO highlights one scientist and one research group only for no particular reason. @Materialscientist seems to prefer this - should all participating researchers and institutions be listed or is it fine for Wikipedia to privilege one arbitrarily? Houseythehouse (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)