Irish Examiner view: How coronavirus surprised science

It is encouraging scientists shared their views on the mistakes they made

A group of seven leading international experts on Covid-19, interviewed by 'The Guardian', produced a fascinating menu of experiences which either surprised them, or about which they were initially wrong.

“Let us be guided by the science” was the mantra of every political leader and politician sent front-of-house to justify restrictions and reductions of liberty and livelihood during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The fact that “the science” and “the data” were moving targets as evidence emerged and was parsed in different ways was understood by many at an intuitive level, and for much of the time citizens were prepared for lawmakers to err on the side of caution. But presenting “the science” as incontrovertible was always going to prove problematic, based, as the process is, on discovery, challenge, and being proved wrong.

It is encouraging, then, for scientists to share their views on the mistakes they made and what surprised them in the past two years. These experts on whom the hopes and fears of the world rested have often been pilloried on social media and, let us be clear, in traditional media also, and it is a sign of intellectual bravery to acknowledge any change of mind. Progress depends on it.

A group of seven leading international experts, interviewed by The Guardian, produced a fascinating menu of experiences which either surprised them, or about which they were initially wrong.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

One of the most striking conclusions, from Professor Peter Openshaw, involved the emergence of practical vaccines just before Christmas 2020. “There had been no example of a vaccine for a human coronavirus and the vaccines for an animal coronavirus were not that good,” he said. The revelation of positive trials confounded his 30 years of experience, and saved millions of lives.

Other experts regretted the decisions to lock down schools; the banning of relatives from residential units and a failure to redeploy staff into nursing homes.

Professor Susan Michie originally felt the evidence for the effectiveness of facemasks was equivocal, until it became clear that the transmission of the virus was by aerosol rather than droplet. She then became a firm supporter of their use.

Professor Neil Ferguson, the controversial epidemiologist at Imperial College, London, points to three trends on which he was at first wrong. He says he underestimated the level of Covid infections being brought into countries by travellers; miscalculated the speed of transmissibility; and the impact of human behaviour on the spread of new variants.

Debating the lessons openly is healthy and constructive. Our columnist, Mick Clifford, as part of his analysis of Golfgate and the Iveagh House selfie row, posed the relevant question: “what about an inquiry that is desperately waiting to happen? The Government has set up an expert group to identify lessons to be learned from the pandemic. By right there should be a full inquiry with broad terms of reference. Such an inquiry, although relatively limited in scope, was established after the economic collapse in 2008. This time it is even more important that shortcomings are identified in order to ensure there is no repeat.”