This morning one of those confusing moments that don’t fit comfortably in narratives happened. I read an article on Dominic Cummings interfering with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies which is supposed to be an independent group that advises government on scientific matters. They are self-described as apolitical and therefore will advise without government policy in mind, simply focusing on the purity of their advice. This is contentious because throughout this whole Covid-19 pandemic in the UK politicians have always stressed they are simply following the latest scientific advice. This scientific advice then can not be independent and uncorrupted if the Prime Ministers Chief Advisor and the man actually suspected of being in charge has also been sitting in on and interfering with these meetings. This would imply that the independent advice these politicians are following is in fact their own advice just repackaged in a lab coat. The article goes on to criticise Cummings for interfering and while government says it is normal for advisors to observe, it is actually anything but and Cummings was doing anything but observe.
Now then where is this issue with narrative and why the cold sweat as I realised I didn’t know which box to fit this all in. The government has been accused repeatedly of dithering and being too slow in shutting down major events and the country on the whole. This is not an inaccurate statement to make. As would be the one that they prioritised the economy over peoples lives. Cummings is criticised for accusations that he believed attempting to create some kind of herd immunity would be the best plan even if it meant some people would die. The article also suggests that he was pushing the scientists to recommend the country go into lockdown. He is criticised in the piece for doing this and accused of interfering and manipulating the situation. Ultimately it appears to be a critical piece on him and Bloomberg Press is a centrist organisation so any political leanings are not immediately obvious.
Which leads to my confusion. He has been criticised for interfering. The government have been criticised for being too slow. His interfering was to push for the country to go into lockdown. The Government though never appeared overly keen on shutting everything down. If he wanted the country shut down it doesn’t tally with his desire for herd immunity. The piece could therefore be an attempt to portray him as the man responsible for saving the day and implementing lockdown but it criticises him throughout. Critical for herd immunity and for interfering to achieve lockdown seems in my eyes to be contradictory. Narratives have been blown wide open and I have no idea what is going on. I’m having to think independently of pre-conceived ideas and it hurts. Lazy journalism? Confusing reality? Narratives accidentally being crossed? Me lost? At least one of those is true. Potentially all of them. Probably all of them.
Observations and Misunderstandings 