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).
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Maybe we will end up having AI as government. ——-There won’t be any brown envelopes flying about, no backhanders, no lobbyists, no donations to political parties, no NGO’s, no phony junk science, no Marxists masquerading as people concerned for the planet. No excuses for mass immigration by one world government people not caring where all the people live. We could have strict enforcement of laws, where mamby pamby Liberals don’t get to insist discipline and punishment are dirty words. ———–But then again who does the programming?
According to the future of Buck Rogers where AI administer everything because humans cannot be trusted (some conditioning for children of the day?): after the initial human programming they eventually program each other over generations.
But in that future, there’s nothing fake about the women.
Yes and it might ok so long as the Socialists and Extinction Rebellion don’t do the programming.
Will this be included in the whitewashing inquiry for the spamdemic? I doubt it. No heads will roll, no blame will be accepted, no one who was responsible will budge a nanometer in their ridiculous entrenched positions. They’ll keep on parroting safe and effective and ‘no one knew’ until the cows come home which, considering how they wish to ban farming, won’t be any time soon. I have personally lost respect for scientists in academia because they seem to say such things now when the boot is on the other foot but as a larger academic blob they won’t call out the ludicrous Net Zero poverty and death plan. Even when the facts – the ones that go unreported – are staring them in the face. So while it’s a good thing, I doubt much will happen and Johnson, Sunak and Hancock will not be falling on their own swords.
51% thought all scientific views were considered and 31% thought Neil Ferguson’s modelling was good. Christ.
Final missing question: Should the concept of ‘scientist’ and the use of the term be re-evaluated from the ground up, starting with a publicly available database of an individual’s ties, grants, funding and financial investments?
An EXCELLENT idea.
And one question: explain the difference between
TheScience
Science
Scientist
The Scientific Method
ResearchGate partly does what you’re suggesting. Improving visibility and accessibility of researcher funding, links and investments is certainly a good idea.
Leaving aside the important moral/ethical/philosophical questions as to whether NPIs can ever be justified, I would like to see the following questions asked and answered by these “scientists”: Was there a “pandemic”? If yes, define what the word means and cite evidence that shows that what happened was a “pandemic”. If your answer refers to “cases” and “covid deaths”, define those terms. At all times quote evidence that gives an idea of how the “covid pandemic” compares to equivalent pandemics of the past and how it compares to the normal background burden of respiratory diseases in terms of “cases” and “covid deaths”. Was “covid” a novel pathogen? If yes, cite evidence, explaining how it differs from other colds and flu, in any meaningful way. Was there a “public health emergency”? If yes, explain your criteria for such a conclusion and cite evidence that backs it up. With regard to modelling, if you say modelling was/is useful, explain how the accuracy of models can be measured, whether different models and/or different assumptions were tested against real-world outcomes. At all times, take into account counterfactuals and control groups. I doubt many, if any, would be able to come up with answers to… Read more »
General point we need to stop upholding the diet coke tyranny in Sweden as some ideal. Belarus got this 1000% correct here is the proof:
Hysterical western reporting showing there was no lockdown:
https://youtu.be/EcKLT9fzX4A?feature=shared
Deaths by year in Belarus, the year of the great plague seems to give 0.1-0.2% increase in mortality vs the 5 year average. This is with a very poor health care system and pretty fat population compared to neighbours.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/knoema.com/atlas/Belarus/Death-rate%3fmode=amp
How many migrants, health tourists, business people etc etc are all running around in Belarus?
Everyone was in the Resistance and thousands were on the balcony at the Iranian Embassy!
The fact that 2/3 of scientists agree means nothing. Concensus is not a valid scientific postion.
Spot on!
The truth and facts are the only basis for scientific concensus not beliefs and feelings!
That great meme which stated “97% of scientists agree with the people funding them”. The truth is what I say(pay) it is!
The ministers in on the Scam knew the Lockdowns would be seriously damaging to the economy and population health – that was the point of them. They also knew there was no pandemic. So the “scientists” responding to this survey have yet again revealed their stupidity and downright ignorance.
‘As George Parker and colleagues reported in the Financial Times in July 2020: “Only Jesse Norman, a Treasury minister, raised any doubts, asking whether there had been any cost-benefit analysis of the economic and health impacts of lockdown or consideration of less onerous alternatives. Around the room there were blank looks: the decision had been taken.” What an utter disgrace! Reform, reform, reform the civil service…… ‘The civil service urgently needs a new statutory role to clarify its purpose, reinforce its standing, enhance its accountability, and to strengthen the partnership between ministers and civil servants upon which government depends.’ ‘Successive governments have struggled to tackle many of the biggest policy problems the country faces. This report examines the causes of persistent failures and sets out recommendations as to how government – both ministers and officials – could change to make policy better It calls for stronger accountability for policy advice, decisions and outcomes, more diverse and expert civil service teams, and a strengthened Cabinet Office – to agree the government’s policy programme and hold departments to account.’ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/better-policy-making The report is published alongside a second new paper, A new statutory role for the civil service, which argues that the civil service urgently… Read more »
“a majority of British scientists surveyed believe“.
What a crap story and what a crap basis for a story.
What qualified in this survey as a “scientist”?
What was the basis for equating the opinion of a person designated for this story a “scientist” and being a scientific opinion?
A paleontologist is a ‘scientist’ and marketing is apparently a science along with sociology and political ‘science’.
It is amazing how low the bar is to being a ‘scientist’.