This bit got my attention: "...scientific committees that advised Johnson didn’t study, until mid-March, the option of the kind of stringent lockdown adopted e

This bit got my attention: "...scientific committees that advised Johnson didn’t study, until mid-March, the option of the kind of stringent lockdown adopted early on in China [...] The scientists’ reasoning: Britons, many of them assumed, simply wouldn’t accept such restrictions." In order words, the scientists self-censored themselves on the basis of a political judgement about what the population would or wouldn't accept. But they weren't political experts, and weren't employed to be. This seems like a big problem for basing policy on expert opinion. Most people are inexpert on most subjects. How do you ensure expert advice and decisions aren't contaminated by the expert's natural biases, and without it coming over as "stay in your lane" hectoring?