The majority of British scientists surveyed believe the government is not paying enough attention to the long-term collateral damage of lockdowns.
A wide-ranging survey conducted by The Telegraph and Censuswide shows that nearly seven in ten academics (68%) believe the negative impacts caused by the country’s lockdown should be given greater consideration.
These views stand in stark contrast to public discourse at the peak of the epidemic, when only a few dissenting scientific voices spoke out to highlight the health and economic risks from lockdowns.
Just over half (51 per cent) of scientists thought lockdowns were always proportionate and justified, while a third were opposed.
The survey also finds that 44 percent of scientists believe pandemic modeling is “excellent” or “good,” while about 37 percent think it is “average,” “poor,” or “very poor.”
Experts said the results showed there was far less scientific consensus than the public was led to believe, and warned that many academics at the time felt unable to express their opinions.
Scientists feared loss of patronage
Former government Covid adviser Prof Robert Dingwall, of Nottingham Trent University, said: “For those of us who can make evidence-based critiques of ‘official science’ and government actions, it has always been clear that we have received significant implicit support from the scientific community.
“But this has been muted by concerns about the difficulty of publication as a loss of patronage, access to research grants and the cost of speaking out.
“Others have certainly paid the price for trying to voice staunch opposition. “I don’t blame anyone for keeping their head down if they have a career to build, a family to support, or a quiet life preference.”
Speaking against lockdowns during the pandemic, Conservative MP Bob Seely said: “At the time, we were understandably focused on the immediate risks.
“However, it was also clear that little thought was given to the long-term damage to a society, particularly to youth development. Schools should never have been closed. We see a generation of youth being harmed.
“There was a lot of politics from some scientists pushing a politicized agenda.”
He added: “The lack of attention to the origins of the virus seems odd.
“My fear is that, at the very least, isolation will be seen as an ineffective way of dealing with the crisis. “I felt the lack of an open, science-based conversation during the crisis was troubling.”
A wounded generation
Last month, the World Bank warned that lockdown disruptions in education would scar multiple generations of children with severe developmental and learning delays.
NHS waiting lists rose 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 University College London study in February estimated that 12,000 years of life had been lost in Britain due to delays in diagnosing skin cancer during Covid lockdowns.
Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer of Check4Cancer and adjunct professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, warned repeatedly in 2020 and 2021 that delaying cancer diagnosis and treatment would lead to deaths but said his fears were ignored.
“I felt like my concerns were being ignored when it came to the government,” he said.
“I have real concerns that we will not do anything differently if we face another outbreak, because the Covid Inquiry is not very interested in identifying what went wrong in our approach and how we will change it next time.”
The Telegraph survey of 198 scientists from universities across Britain, conducted between December and February, also showed that 70 per cent of respondents believed government decisions were not transparent or were not communicated well.
Only three per cent thought all scientific views were taken into account by the Government, while a third believed officials were focusing only on minority views.
Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, said it was important to prevent “abuse and persecution” of scientists prepared to challenge the consensus.
“It is clear that there are systemic issues in academia that need to be addressed before these critical issues can be more fully discussed,” he said.
“I hope that in the future, institutions such as universities and the Royal Society, as well as the government and the media, will see fit to engage in greater debate and allow dissenting voices to be heard.”
The survey also showed that scientists were divided on whether Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory, with a majority saying China was not open and transparent about the origins of the disease.
About a third believe gain-of-function experiments that boost the potency of viruses and bacteria could trigger a pandemic, while the same number think the work could help prevent future outbreaks.
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 these experiments carry risks and they need to be regulated.
“Now that the dust is settling, I hope people will be allowed to have a balanced discussion.”
The survey, which looks at current controversial issues in science, found that nearly six in 10 scientists think gender is binary, while a similar number accept that gender is fluid.
Responding to the survey, a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Throughout the pandemic, the Government has acted to save lives and livelihoods by preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed and delivered a world-leading vaccine rollout that has protected millions.
“We have always said there are lessons to be learned from the pandemic and we are determined to learn from the findings of the Covid-19 Survey, which will be key in informing the Government’s future planning and preparations.”
Analysis
Skeptical scientists need to be confident in their braver side
Read more