Government Did Not Sufficiently Consider Long Term Effects of Lockdown, Say 7 in 10 Scientists

A commuter wears a mask as he sits in a bus shelter with NHS signage promoting "Stay Home, Save Lives" in Chinatown, central London, UK, on Jan. 8, 2021. Tolga Akmen /AFP via Getty Images

Nearly seven in ten (68 percent) of doctors think the government did not pay sufficient attention to the long-term damage of the COVID-19 lockdown, a poll of scientists has found.

The poll of 198 scientists from universities across the UK commissioned by The Telegraph found conversely that just 19 percent thought ministers had paid sufficient attention to the impact of lockdown, with 14 percent expressing no views or preferring not to say.

The survey, conducted by research consultants Censuswide and published on Saturday, also found that just 3 percent of respondents thought the government had looked at “all” scientific views during the pandemic. Another 51 percent believed a “majority of them” had been considered, while one-third (33 percent) said they believed only a “minority” of expert opinions had been examined.

Conservative MP Bob Seely told the newspaper: “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 said.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman told The Telegraph in response to the survey: “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.”

Scientists Feared Challenging the Consensus

Academics told the newspaper that scientists did not share their concerns during the pandemic, fearing the impact it would have on their professional lives.

Former government COVID-19 adviser and Nottingham Trent University professor Robert Dingwall 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.”

Professor Dingwall said: “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.”

Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, said universities and other institutions must prevent the “abuse and persecution” of those in the scientific community willing to challenge the consensus.

Professor Gupta continued, “There are clearly systemic problems in academia that need to be addressed in order to permit a fuller debate of these critical issues.”

“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,” she added.

Concerns Were Ignored

Responding to the survey, Gordon Wishart, visiting professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University and chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, said his fears were ignored when he said that delaying cancer diagnoses and treatment would lead to deaths.

“I did feel like my concerns were falling on deaf ears as far as the Government is concerned,” professor Wishart said. He said that he had “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.”

In February 2023, authors of a BMJ Oncology article said 28,000 patients had been waiting more than 62 days on a suspected cancer pathway, which compared with 14,000 on average before the pandemic. The authors warned this meant “worsening survival outcomes as patients present with more advanced disease.” They also expressed concern over the shortfall in cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic based on annual rates, noting, for example, that nearly 14,000 men with prostate cancer had remained unaccounted for.

Research also suggests lockdowns affected the social and emotional wellbeing of children.

A study published in August 2023 from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and University College London’s Institute of Education found that nearly half (47 percent) of parents reported that their child’s emotional and social skills had worsened during the first year of the pandemic.

Journalist and author Harriet Sergeant told Lee Hall of NTD’s “British Thought Leaders” last month that many children “have had long term damage because of absence from schools” because of the lockdowns.

Ms. Sergeant said there had been a rise of so-called “ghost children”—pupils who have dropped off the school rolls—explaining that before lockdown, the figure for persistently absent children was about 60,000, but that figure had increased to 140,000.

Ms. Sergeant said that one school counsellor had found absences tend to fall into one of two categories: those that are “just too anxious to leave their room,” and those that are “so angry and aggressive they’re out on the street, they’re joining gangs, and they’ve just dropped out completely.”