Michael Ejercito
2024-03-04 00:51:08 UTC
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1b5w1bi/telegraph_ministers_failed_to_consider_longterm/
Ministers failed to consider long-term pain of lockdown, say scientists
Poll of leading thinkers contrasts sharply with public perception at
height of pandemic that there was consensus
Sarah Knapton,
SCIENCE EDITOR and
Joe Pinkstone
2 March 2024 • 6:00pm
667
poll result
The Government did not pay sufficient attention to the long-term
collateral damage of lockdowns, a majority of British scientists
surveyed believe.
A wide-ranging survey conducted by The Telegraph and Censuswide shows
that nearly seven in ten (68 per cent) 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 per cent) of scientists thought lockdowns were
always proportionate and always justified, one third disagreed.
The survey also reveals that while 44 per cent of scientists believed
pandemic modelling was “excellent” or “good”, some 37 per cent 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.
Scientists feared loss of patronage
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.”
Bob Seeley, a Tory MP who during the pandemic spoke up against
lockdowns, said: “At the time we were, understandably, focused on
immediate risk.
“However, it was also clear that there was precious little thought as to
the long-term damage to a society, especially in the development of
young people. Schools should never have been shut. We are seeing a
generation of young people damaged.
“There was too much politics from some scientists who were pushing a
politicised agenda.”
He added: “The lack of interest in the origins of the virus seems bizarre.
“My fear is that at very least, lockdown will be seen to have been an
ineffective way of dealing with the crisis. The lack of an open and
science-led conversation during the crisis was, I felt, disturbing.”
A generation scarred
Last month, the World Bank warned that lockdown disruption to education
would scar multiple generations of children who suffered serious
developmental and learning delays.
NHS waiting lists soared to a record 7.8 million last September and
there have been tens of thousands of extra non-Covid deaths since the
pandemic, particularly among heart and cancer patients.
A study from University College London in February estimated that 12,000
years of life had been lost in Britain because of delays in diagnosing
skin cancer during Covid lockdowns.
Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, and visiting
professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, repeatedly
warned in 2020 and 2021 that delaying cancer diagnosis and treatment
would lead to deaths, but said his fears were ignored.
“I did feel like my concerns were falling on deaf ears as far as the
Government is concerned,” he said.
“I have real concerns that we would not do anything different if we have
another pandemic, as the Covid Inquiry did not seem that interested in
identifying what went wrong with our approach, and how we would change
it next time.”
The Telegraph survey, taken between December and February by 198
scientists from universities across Britain, also showed that 70 per
cent believed government decisions were not transparent or well
communicated.
During the pandemic, what did you think of the Government’s communication?
17%
Transparent and well communicated
70%
Not transparent and not well communicated
13%
No views on this/prefer not to say
During the pandemic, do you think of the Government paid sufficient
attention to the long-term damage of lockdowns?
19%
Government paid sufficient attention
Government did not pay sufficient attention
68%
14%
No views on this/prefer not to say
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Just three per cent thought all scientific views had been considered by
the Government, while a third believed officials had focused on only a
minority of opinions.
During Covid in the UK, how would you rate the effectiveness of the
modelling that was used?
During the Covid pandemic in the UK, how many, if any, scientific views
were considered?
3%
19%
All of
them
Excellent
51%
Majority
of them
31%
Good
20%
Average
33%
Minority
of them
13%
Poor
4%
1%
Extremely poor
None of them
19%
14%
No views/prefer
not to say
No views/prefer
not to say
During the pandemic, what did you think of the Government's decisions?
Transparent and well-communicated
51%
Not transparent and not well-communicated
33%
No views on this/prefer not to say
16%
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University
of Oxford, said it was important to prevent the “abuse and persecution”
of scientists who were prepared to challenge the consensus.
“There are clearly systemic problems in academia that need to be
addressed in order to permit a fuller debate of these critical issues,”
she said.
“In future, I hope universities and institutions like the Royal Society,
as well as the government and the media, will see fit to put on more
debates and allow dissenting voices to be heard.”
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.
Do you think Covid-19 is of zoonotic/natural origin?
Definitely
Most likely
Most likely not
Definitely not
No views on this/
prefer not to say
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
Do you think China have been open and transparent about the origins of
Covid-19?
61%
6%
34%
No
Yes
No views on this/
prefer not to say
Do you think Covid-19 leaked from a lab in China?
Yes
No
No views on this/
prefer not to say
0%
10
20
30
40
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
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.
Do you think gain-of-function experiments experiments are needed to
prevent future pandemics?
34%
52%
No views on this/prefer not to say
Yes
14%
No
Do you think gain-of-function experiments experiments risk sparking
future pandemics?
34%
47%
No views on this/prefer not to say
Yes
19%
No
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Ravi Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at the University of
Cambridge, said: “I think the survey shows that people believe in the
ability of science to answer questions but some of those experiments
carry a risk and they need to be regulated.
“Now the dust is settling, hopefully people are allowed to have a
balanced discussion.”
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.
Do you think sex is binary?
58%
29%
13%
Yes*
No
No views on this
/prefer not to say
*except in rare cases such as intersex individuals
Do you think gender is binary?
22%
64%
14%
Yes
No
No views on this
/prefer not to say
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Responding to the survey, a Department of Health and Social Care
spokesman said: “Throughout the pandemic, the Government acted to save
lives and livelihoods, preventing the NHS being overwhelmed, and
delivered a world-leading vaccine rollout which protected millions.
“We have always said there are lessons to be learnt from the pandemic
and are committed to learning from the Covid-19 Inquiry’s findings,
which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and
preparations for the future.”
Ministers failed to consider long-term pain of lockdown, say scientists
Poll of leading thinkers contrasts sharply with public perception at
height of pandemic that there was consensus
Sarah Knapton,
SCIENCE EDITOR and
Joe Pinkstone
2 March 2024 • 6:00pm
667
poll result
The Government did not pay sufficient attention to the long-term
collateral damage of lockdowns, a majority of British scientists
surveyed believe.
A wide-ranging survey conducted by The Telegraph and Censuswide shows
that nearly seven in ten (68 per cent) 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 per cent) of scientists thought lockdowns were
always proportionate and always justified, one third disagreed.
The survey also reveals that while 44 per cent of scientists believed
pandemic modelling was “excellent” or “good”, some 37 per cent 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.
Scientists feared loss of patronage
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.”
Bob Seeley, a Tory MP who during the pandemic spoke up against
lockdowns, said: “At the time we were, understandably, focused on
immediate risk.
“However, it was also clear that there was precious little thought as to
the long-term damage to a society, especially in the development of
young people. Schools should never have been shut. We are seeing a
generation of young people damaged.
“There was too much politics from some scientists who were pushing a
politicised agenda.”
He added: “The lack of interest in the origins of the virus seems bizarre.
“My fear is that at very least, lockdown will be seen to have been an
ineffective way of dealing with the crisis. The lack of an open and
science-led conversation during the crisis was, I felt, disturbing.”
A generation scarred
Last month, the World Bank warned that lockdown disruption to education
would scar multiple generations of children who suffered serious
developmental and learning delays.
NHS waiting lists soared to a record 7.8 million last September and
there have been tens of thousands of extra non-Covid deaths since the
pandemic, particularly among heart and cancer patients.
A study from University College London in February estimated that 12,000
years of life had been lost in Britain because of delays in diagnosing
skin cancer during Covid lockdowns.
Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, and visiting
professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, repeatedly
warned in 2020 and 2021 that delaying cancer diagnosis and treatment
would lead to deaths, but said his fears were ignored.
“I did feel like my concerns were falling on deaf ears as far as the
Government is concerned,” he said.
“I have real concerns that we would not do anything different if we have
another pandemic, as the Covid Inquiry did not seem that interested in
identifying what went wrong with our approach, and how we would change
it next time.”
The Telegraph survey, taken between December and February by 198
scientists from universities across Britain, also showed that 70 per
cent believed government decisions were not transparent or well
communicated.
During the pandemic, what did you think of the Government’s communication?
17%
Transparent and well communicated
70%
Not transparent and not well communicated
13%
No views on this/prefer not to say
During the pandemic, do you think of the Government paid sufficient
attention to the long-term damage of lockdowns?
19%
Government paid sufficient attention
Government did not pay sufficient attention
68%
14%
No views on this/prefer not to say
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Just three per cent thought all scientific views had been considered by
the Government, while a third believed officials had focused on only a
minority of opinions.
During Covid in the UK, how would you rate the effectiveness of the
modelling that was used?
During the Covid pandemic in the UK, how many, if any, scientific views
were considered?
3%
19%
All of
them
Excellent
51%
Majority
of them
31%
Good
20%
Average
33%
Minority
of them
13%
Poor
4%
1%
Extremely poor
None of them
19%
14%
No views/prefer
not to say
No views/prefer
not to say
During the pandemic, what did you think of the Government's decisions?
Transparent and well-communicated
51%
Not transparent and not well-communicated
33%
No views on this/prefer not to say
16%
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University
of Oxford, said it was important to prevent the “abuse and persecution”
of scientists who were prepared to challenge the consensus.
“There are clearly systemic problems in academia that need to be
addressed in order to permit a fuller debate of these critical issues,”
she said.
“In future, I hope universities and institutions like the Royal Society,
as well as the government and the media, will see fit to put on more
debates and allow dissenting voices to be heard.”
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.
Do you think Covid-19 is of zoonotic/natural origin?
Definitely
Most likely
Most likely not
Definitely not
No views on this/
prefer not to say
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
Do you think China have been open and transparent about the origins of
Covid-19?
61%
6%
34%
No
Yes
No views on this/
prefer not to say
Do you think Covid-19 leaked from a lab in China?
Yes
No
No views on this/
prefer not to say
0%
10
20
30
40
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
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.
Do you think gain-of-function experiments experiments are needed to
prevent future pandemics?
34%
52%
No views on this/prefer not to say
Yes
14%
No
Do you think gain-of-function experiments experiments risk sparking
future pandemics?
34%
47%
No views on this/prefer not to say
Yes
19%
No
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Ravi Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at the University of
Cambridge, said: “I think the survey shows that people believe in the
ability of science to answer questions but some of those experiments
carry a risk and they need to be regulated.
“Now the dust is settling, hopefully people are allowed to have a
balanced discussion.”
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.
Do you think sex is binary?
58%
29%
13%
Yes*
No
No views on this
/prefer not to say
*except in rare cases such as intersex individuals
Do you think gender is binary?
22%
64%
14%
Yes
No
No views on this
/prefer not to say
SOURCE: CENSUSWIDE SURVEY WITH 198 UK SCIENTISTS (2023/ 2024)
Responding to the survey, a Department of Health and Social Care
spokesman said: “Throughout the pandemic, the Government acted to save
lives and livelihoods, preventing the NHS being overwhelmed, and
delivered a world-leading vaccine rollout which protected millions.
“We have always said there are lessons to be learnt from the pandemic
and are committed to learning from the Covid-19 Inquiry’s findings,
which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and
preparations for the future.”