uring his rose garden press conference, Dominic Cummings was asked if his trip to Durham had undermined government public health messaging. I hope not, he replied. Later, Boris Johnson was asked the same question. His response was more definitive: no one in No 10 has undermined the messaging. I hope they are right. For this matters. If people stop listening to what the government asks them to do and if they stop adhering to coronavirus measures then the number of infections will rise and more people will die. But I cannot be as certain or as optimistic as the prime minister and his adviser. All that we know about adherence (knowledge that behavioural scientists have repeatedly stressed to the government during the pandemic) suggests that damage has been done. First, for all the complexities of Cummings’ story, the bottom line is very simple. While millions of people up and down the land faced agonising personal circumstances and decided to stick with lockdown, Cummings did not. He went to Durham at the very time his government was insisting “stay at home, don’t travel”. He went to a beauty spot at the very time his government was insisting we avoid them. And nothing has happened to him. Instead, his actions have been endorsed. At the very least, that gives the appearance of “one rule for them, another for us” (possibly the best way of corroding trust in authority and adherence to the rules). And Cummings more than anyone else understands the importance of appearance in politics. Second, the one thing that has carried us through the pandemic so far has been an emergent sense of community. This “we” feeling has been critical in getting people to adhere to the restrictions, even when they personally were not at risk. It has been critical to all the volunteering and neighbourhood support that has helped us through hardship. It is the most valuable asset we have in a crisis. But the most notable thing about Cummings’ rose garden performance was that “we” was nowhere to be found. It was all about “I”. His explanation was entirely about his judgments as an individual, his decisions, his personal concerns. At no point was there any thought to the impact of his actions on others. Still worse, in his defence of Cummings on Sunday, the prime minister seemed to endorse the idea that, when the going gets tough, it is fine to rely on your own judgments – and fine to follow your individual “instincts”. In effect, Johnson’s defence of Cummings turned an issue of communal responsibility into an issue of individual preference. Had everyone done that – had we all put so much energy into thinking about loopholes that served our personal circumstances rather than thinking about the impact of our actions on others – then lockdown would not have worked, the infection would still be raging and the NHS would have been overwhelmed. As we come out of lockdown these issues become, if anything, even more important. It isn’t that the infection has gone away. Rather we are now in a position, due to past sacrifices by the many, to use more targeted strategies against coronavirus. But these are dependent on us all maintaining physical distancing, increasing hygiene standards, revealing our contacts if infected and observing quarantine if contacted. All of these measures are personally inconvenient. Often it will be easier to ignore them. They will only work if we continue to act together and for each other. I hope this will happen. I hope people will continue to demonstrate the remarkable solidarity they have shown so far. I hope the collective spirit won’t be damaged. But this sorry affair doesn’t help, and the more they defend themselves, the more our top politician and his top adviser demonstrate that they don’t even appreciate what the problems are. • Stephen Reicher is a member of the Sage subcommittee advising on behavioural science, an adviser to the UK and Scottish governments on coronavirus and professor of social psychology at the University of St Andrews