"Experts used the early poor-quality studies to feed into the general mania that supported restrictions. Exaggeration of case numbers, misunderstanding of those who were truly at risk, sweeping statements about the mode of transmission and models that tried to peek into the future laid the groundwork for the suppression of civil liberties and the considerable fallout that now requires societies to pay the price for decades to come. Yet those who put their heads above the parapet to point out the flaws in these early studies and the weakness in the policies that followed were suppressed, censored and vilified. Communicating health evidence requires describing the weakness in the study design that undermines its results. Unfortunately, most early studies were so poorly done that they contributed nothing to understanding the transmission of the virus and, in some cases, misled decision-makers. All too often, study results were used by experts who dipped into the pandemic – who have now dipped out – to back up positions of certainty. Such dogma led to the breakdown of constructive discussion. Consequently, destructive policies went largely unchallenged. So we have one more casualty of the Covid 19 pandemic: science. This is based on free, civilised discussion and recognition of the presence and role of uncertainty – the vital ingredients for its progress. Following “the science” was not a potent force for effective policymaking when so much of the “science” was flawed."
