The government must refresh its approach to decision making for a second coronavirus wave

The coronavirus pandemic is an extraordinary test for governments all over the world. But the UK’s response has been hampered by decision making that has at times been chaotic, announcement-driven and overly dependent on scientific advice.

With infections again on the rise, the government faces many of the same decisions it did back in March: when and how far does it need to go in restricting social interaction to stop the virus; what support should it offer the economy; how can it keep essential services running; and how does it strike a balance where interests conflict?

The answers to these questions are no more straightforward than they were in the initial phase of the pandemic, but the government can at least draw lessons from the mistakes it made first time around.

Set aside time to think about the medium and long term

It is understandable the government might want to throw all of its resources at the crisis of the moment. But to avoid being stuck in firefighting mode it needs to ringfence dedicated resources for medium- and longer-term planning. Senior officials should be given explicit responsibility, and the necessary resources, to analyse how current scenarios will play out and to start planning an exit strategy as soon as new measures are decided. The government must embed that thinking in its day-to-day decisions.

This would help it better anticipate problems before they materialise, like a run on demand for testing when schools returned, which the test and trace tsar said she had not foreseen. It would also help it avoid decisions that satisfy that day’s press conference, but turn out later to be impossible to deliver (like returning primary pupils to school before the summer break), or cause problems down the track, like abolishing Public Health England just before a second wave.

Some parts of government seem to have learnt this lesson from the early part of the crisis. For instance, the Department for Education released guidance over the summer to help schools navigate anticipated local lockdowns and stepped up its commitment to providing laptops to disadvantaged students. But the government’s call for workers to return to their offices, followed by a retreat only a month later, suggest it is not consistently thinking through the medium-term consequences of its decisions.

Bring business and unions, local government and delivery bodies inside the tent

Consultation is key when it comes to making good decisions in government. Even fast consultation in a crisis can help decision makers spot problems, and it can help secure a public buy-in for a decision. The chancellor’s work with business groups and unions ahead of the furlough scheme, which was developed over 48 hours, shows the benefits of this approach, while recent images of Rishi Sunak flanked by the heads of the CBI and the TUC was smart optics.

At other times, however, the government has not shown such a willingness to engage, and is still grappling with the distinction between co-ordinating action from the centre and running everything from the centre. As a result, local government has been blindsided by several decisions it was expected to implement, from the deployment of ‘Covid marshals’ to police local lockdowns. Opening dialogue between central and local government would help ministers to take decisions that work – and save them from embarrassing retreats.

Give scientists a seat at the top table – but don’t expect them to become the policy makers

In early decisions on social distancing, the government looked almost exclusively to its scientific advisers on SAGE for answers. SAGE members are science experts, not experts in how social care works, or in the logistics behind a testing system. So while science advice will be critical to any decisions taken in the coming weeks and months, ministers must also take advice from other parts of government, and other sectors, when making decisions about how to limit spread of the virus.

The UK emerged from the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic with the highest excess deaths in Europe. To avoid such an invidious title after the likely second wave, it must learn from its past mistakes now. Its approach to decision making would be the first place to start.