Throughout September and October 2020, case numbers and hospitalisations continued to rise nationwide. As the virus started to spread and a second wave appeared to have started, SAGE advised on 21 September 2020 that a two week ‘circuit breaker’, a short and sharp lockdown, could return incidence to manageable levels.193 However, the Government resisted that advice and continued to take localised action. This was a key moment when the Government significantly diverged from the scientific advice it received. On 24 September 2020, SAGE said: SAGE previously advised that a 2 week ‘circuit-breaker’, where more stringent restrictions are put in place for a shorter period, could have additional impact. A shorter break of a week or less is likely to be less effective in reducing the number of infections and slowing the growth of the epidemic. 191 GOV.UK, ‘News story: Coronavirus (COVID-19): What has changed – 22 September’, accessed 17 August 2021. See also: Letter from the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee to Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, dated 30 September 2020, and Sir Patrick’s response dated 13 October 2020; and Letter from the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock MP, dated 13 October 2020, and the Secretary of State’s response dated 16 October 2020. 192 Oral evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee on 3 November 2020, HC (2019–21) 136, Qq1538–39 193 GOV.UK, SAGE 57, 17 September 2020 50 Coronavirus: lessons learned to date However, while a single circuit breaker has the potential to keep prevalence much lower than no intervention, it is not a long-term solution. Long-term control of the virus will likely require repeated circuit breaks, or for one to be followed by a longer-term period with measures in place to keep R at or below 1. Longer-term sustained measures will also be essential.194