The “lockdown skeptic” label was once a badge of shame used to condemn anyone who questioned punitive Covid restrictions as a heartless granny killer.
What a difference four years makes.
The majority of scientists now believe that more attention should be paid to the true cost of quarantines; Only half think that this action is always justified.
Maybe that’s the benefit of hindsight. But what is clear is that few people at the time were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet for fear of damaging their careers.
That’s not the way science works, and our best minds need more initiative. But it is a striking demonstration of how thoughtful thought has been replaced by activism and dogma in institutions that are supposed to be champions of free speech.
Universities, which have moved alarmingly left over the last few decades, are now so mired in groupthink that even the most liberal academics struggle to make their voices heard in such a noisy echo chamber.
politically motivated
Covid was a good example of this. Much of the pro-lockdown narrative was controlled by a small group of scientists who effectively organized themselves into a politically motivated movement seeking to influence policy.
Independent Sage, a group of mostly Left-wing academics who regularly call for continued restrictions, was brought together with the help of a group called The Citizens, founded by Guardian and Observer journalist and activist Carole Cadwalladr.
The group was given an inordinate amount of broadcast time by the BBC and Sky News, confusing the public with many people believing they were hearing from real Sage scientists.
All the usual decision-making processes have gone out the window, replaced by emotional hyperbole that crudely applies cost-benefit calculations to ensure taxpayers’ money is well spent on health interventions.
Oxford University’s Prof Carl Heneghan warned as early as 2020 that the lockdown would bankrupt the country and leave a catastrophic health legacy.
Roughly based on £400bn of Covid spending in the UK, it estimates more than 13 million lives will need to be saved by measures that would justify the eye-watering costs.
Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College predicted that 500,000 deaths could occur if politicians alone took no action, a figure thought by many scientists to be unlikely.
“Decision-making in pandemics is often done on computers and is overly influenced by modelling,” Prof Heneghan said.
“The Coronavirus Act has empowered a few people who were panicking. “They were aided and abetted by scientists and advisors who were too quick to recommend tougher restrictions without any evidence to explain their actions.”
Whether this will make a difference in the future remains to be seen. Faced with a similar threat, many people may choose the path of least resistance.
fallout scale
Jason Oke, a senior statistician at the University of Oxford, told me: “If you had done this survey in the middle of 2020, I think you would have seen different responses. I assume many people did not foresee the extent of the effects of the lockdown.”
But a lack of willingness to talk about “hot potato” issues is also evident in survey results addressing the origins of Covid.
A vocal group of scientists on social media continues to claim that academia has now reached consensus on a purely zoonotic origin. Many journalists repeat this view without considering whether it is true or not.
Our survey results show a much more nuanced picture, with more than a quarter believing the coronavirus leaked from a laboratory in China. Only 37 percent of scientists believe there was no leak in the laboratory, and almost the same number of scientists have no opinion.
In other words, 59 percent of those who commented said “Team Zoonosis” and 41 percent said “Team Lab Leak”. The overwhelming consensus we are led to believe is almost non-existent.
The same division story emerges when considering gain-of-function experiments that increase the virulence of viruses and bacteria. Many virologists working in this field will tell you that this type of science is very important and that concerns about escaped pathogens are exaggerated.
Our results show that a third of scientists believe that such studies are crucial to preventing a dangerous zoonotic epidemic, while the same number of scientists believe that they could trigger a future epidemic.
This disagreement is healthy, but it largely takes place behind the scenes, leading the public to believe that there is general agreement on the issue.
It’s a similar picture with the sex and gender debate. Although influential academics such as Prof Alice Roberts would have you believe such ideas are “essentialism” and “bad science”, almost two-thirds of those who commented said sex is a binary concept.
Of course, it’s worrying that almost a third don’t do this, but I’d guess that most of these people don’t work in the biological sciences.
Overall, this survey gave me a reason for hope. My advice to scientists? Be brave, stand up. There are more people on your side than you think.