not a sensible use, i am saying to the government, review that, in light of what i go on to say. just to finish off this point, if we could briefly look at the end of this letter, on the next page, the paragraph starting, i recognise, you are there explicitly recognising that there is an issue about preserving specialist equipment for those in the nhs and other services who need it, you are expressly not talking about competing with them for these face coverings. spot on. exactly. back to the first page, most of this letter is taken up with you referring to other countries where the practice is different, countries where, in one way or another, face coverings among the general population might have been encouraged in some different settings than others. that is right. our own research had shown, others may macro from cities we were speaking to, they were using face coverings, if you have got the virus and are asymptomatic it prevents the drop it spreading to someone who may c
societal issues as sage was doing for the scientific issues? there is a strong case for having the technical economic advice remembering economic advisers often market sensitive. me transparently available to people and, where it is for experts to challenge it, there is a case to be made. my suspicion is a case to be made. my suspicion is this is one that the treasury are fairly unlikely to want to but that is for a large number of legitimate reasons. but, you know, what you say is correct, it would, however, the one bit of what you said i would just be a little bit more cautious of is the idea that the science advice would be trumped by the economic advice. my view is political leadership take both bits of advice and then they should balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine. i balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine. balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine. their “ob, not mine. i have refer to that theirjob, not mine. i have refer to tha