Ministers Failed to Consider Long-Term Pain of Lockdown, Say Two-Thirds of Scientists

The Government did not pay sufficient attention to the long-term collateral damage of lockdowns, a majority of British scientists surveyed believe. The Telegraph has the story.

A wide-ranging survey conducted by the Telegraph and Censuswide shows that nearly seven in ten (68%) academics believe more consideration should have been given to the fallout caused by shutting down the country.

The views are in stark contrast to the public discourse at the height of the pandemic, when only a few dissenting scientific voices spoke out to highlight the health and economic risks from lockdowns.

While just over half (51%) of scientists thought lockdowns were always proportionate and always justified, one third disagreed.

The survey also reveals that while 44% of scientists believed pandemic modelling was “excellent” or “good”, some 37% thought it was “average”, “poor”, or “very poor”.

Experts said the results show there was far less scientific consensus than the public was led to believe, and warned that many academics had felt unable to speak their mind at the time.

Prof Robert Dingwall, a former Government Covid adviser, from Nottingham Trent University, said: “It was always clear to those of us who were able to make evidence-based criticisms of ‘official science’ and Government actions, that we enjoyed considerable tacit support in the scientific community.

“This was, however, muted by concerns about loss of patronage, access to research grants and difficulty in publication as the cost of speaking out.

“Others certainly paid a price for trying to voice loyal opposition. I don’t blame anyone for keeping their head down if they had a career to build, a family to support or a preference for a quiet life.” …

The Telegraph survey, taken between December and February by 198 scientists from universities across Britain, also showed that 70% believed government decisions were not transparent or well communicated.

Just 3% thought all scientific views had been considered by the Government, while a third believed officials had focused on only a minority of opinions. …

The survey also showed that scientists are split over whether COVID-19 leaked from a laboratory, with the majority thinking that China has not been open and transparent about the origins of the disease.

Around one third believe that gain-of-function experiments – which increase the potency of viruses and bacteria – could spark a pandemic, while the same number think the work could help prevent future outbreaks. …

The survey, which dealt with current contentious issues within science, also found that around six in 10 scientists think that sex is binary, while a similar number agree gender is fluid.

While it’s reassuring, I suppose, that over two thirds of scientists surveyed thought the Government should have given more thought to the harms of lockdown, it’s the opposite of reassuring that over half thought lockdowns were always proportionate and always justified. The 17% of scientists who agreed with both those statements appear to be very confused: they think both that the Government should have given more thought to the harms of lockdown and that the lockdowns were fully justified. So what more did they want the Government to think about? It seems that even some very intelligent people can’t accept that the lockdowns were just a really bad idea.

On the origin of the virus, shockingly two-thirds of the scientists think it was definitely or most likely of natural origin, and only about 16% think it is likely or definitely an engineered virus. Slightly more, around 26%, think it leaked from a lab (presumably the 10% difference is those who think it was the leak of a natural virus).