According to The Telegraph:
The minutes show that members were waiting for comprehensive mortality data from Public Health England (PHE) and said that current best estimates for the infection fatality rate, hospitalisation rates, and the number of people needing intensive care were still uncertain.
They also believed that modelling only showed “proof of concept” that lockdowns could help, and warned that “further work would be required”.
The team was also encouraged to look for collaborators and resources outside of the infectious diseases network.
Imperial College held a press briefing about its model on the afternoon of March 16, and on the same day, Boris Johnson ordered the public to avoid pubs, restaurants and non-essential contact and work from home if possible.
At the briefing, Prof Ferguson told journalists that the new conclusions had been reached because “the last few days” had provided “refinements” in the estimates of intensive care demand and hospital surge capacity.
But the minutes now show that SPI-M did not believe the data were complete.
Bob Seely, the MP for the Isle of Wight, who has been critical of modelling throughout the pandemic, said: “The arguments for and against lockdown are complex, but what is becoming clear is that the evidence that the Government saw was incomplete and potentially inaccurate.
“This is a national scandal. No question about it. The data that petrified politicians was inaccurate.”
Of course it was inaccurate! We knew that then. And it must never be forgotten, ivy-league university scientists were telling anyone who would listen that lockdowns were futile and would do more harm than good.
Carl Heneghan is a Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University. Speaking to Talk Radio this morning, he said it’s “inexcusable.”