So it was illuminating that the word "science" did not appear once in Boris Johnson's statement to the Commons on Tuesday, in which he outlined a raft of new restrictions (watch his statement on the measures in the video below).
Behind the scenes, experts are increasingly concerned that their views and recommendations are being ignored as case numbers rise and panic sets in.
Take the 10pm curfew. The Telegraph understands that Sage did not include such a cut-off in its list of recommendations put forward to bring down case numbers – but Downing Street pressed ahead with it anyway.
Government sources say the requirement was added based on "back of the fag packet" calculations, without any scientific research or modelling to back them up.
Scientists on Sage are said to be irritated that they are being blamed for restrictions that they did not recommend, and are calling for Number 10 to publish their original recommendations.
Asked by The Telegraph whether we could see the Sage advice that prompted the new restrictions (watch a pub boss reacting to the curfew in the video below), the Government responded: "The advice will be published online in due course as part of our regular publications. We continue to publish Sage minutes and available evidence when they are no longer under live consideration for policy decisions."
The problem with such an approach is that, by the time it no longer impacts policy decisions, the damage has already been done. And nobody has been able to question the legitimacy of the action.
Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government's chief scientific adviser, has consistently called for Sage advice to be published more quickly, believing that scrutiny from outside scientists is crucial to check their findings, challenge assumptions and supply new thoughts.
"If you sign up to science, you sign up to the idea that others should review your work," he wrote in The Telegraph in May.
The Government, on the other hand, chooses to dump dozens of documents on a Friday afternoon, often giving journalists less than an hour to sort through them before organising background briefings. The most important have regularly been buried in the largest data dumps, making them difficult to find.
Timely access to information is one of a number of areas in which cracks are beginning to show between the Government and its experts.
When Sir Patrick unveiled the 50,000 cases a day "doomsday" graph (illustrated in the graphic below) alongside Professor Chris Whitty earlier this week, he seemed like a man being forced to read a hostage demand by kidnappers.
At pains to point out that the graph was "not a prediction", he repeatedly insisted it was "simply a way of thinking about how quickly this can change".
For a man who sets so much store in creating a transparent and evidence-based response to the pandemic, it must have been excruciating.
Equally troubling was the decision to allow no questions from journalists, which only added to the impression that the Government was keen for the pair to not go off-script.
Insiders claim there is also a growing divide between Prof Whitty and Sir Patrick on how to control the virus. While the chief medical officer is an advocate of increased restrictions to stamp it out, Sir Patrick is more pragmatic, believing we will need to find ways to live with the disease.
He said as much at the press briefing, explaining: "We will be living with this virus. This is circulating amongst the population worldwide. It will continue to do so. We will be learning how to live with it."
It is likely that such an approach will involve vaccinating the most vulnerable and allowing the virus to circulate in the population (the graphic below shows projections for its growth) until herd immunity is achieved. The worry is that the Government, and Professor Whitty, will deem such an approach too risky.
For now, the Government is finding that rowing against the stream of science is leading to difficult questions. Evidence for a 10pm curfew simply does not exist, and academics are divided on whether it will make any difference.
Several argue that alcohol increases risk-taking behaviour, and believe – somewhat optimistically – that a 10pm cut-off will keep people more sober. This week, Mr Johnson noted that "the spread of the disease does tend to happen later at night after more alcohol has been consumed" – although again, there is no evidence to support that statement.
Others believe a curfew will have little impact and misses the point that cases have been rising steeply in religious communities in which most people do not drink. Some scientists even think it will make the problem worse because public transport will be busier.
On Friday, Jeremy King, the CEO of Corbin & King, which owns restaurants including The Wolseley and The Delauney in London, demanded to see the evidence behind the decision. "What is the science behind putting people out on the streets at 10pm, filling the tubes and buses?" he asked on Sky News on Friday.
The Wolseley, in Piccadilly, is a favourite spot for politicians. But ministers may end up with a fly in their soup and a flea in their ear if they continue to impose economically reckless policies without the science to back them up.