By Gabriel Princewill-
Piers Morgan today sparked an interesting debate among scientists about the absence of a consensus on whether a second lockdown is necessary.
On his popular Good Morning Britain show, the television host accused scientists of leaving the public confused over whether a second lockdown in the Uk was necessary.
Addressing scientists, Professor Angus Dalgelish, Professor Devi Sridhar ,and former Public Health director Prof Gabriel Scally, Mr.Morgan asked: ‘Why is it that so many eminent scientists don’t agree with one another?’
Featuring in the debate were Dr Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s Hospital, University of London.
Professor Angus Dalgleish works at St George’s Hospital, University of London, while Dr Angus Dalgleish is a renowned oncologist and vaccine researcher.
Delay
Prof Devi Sridhar, 35, professor of global public health at the Edinburgh University, proffered the view there should be no delay in introducing a second lockdown.
The 35-year-old said the government missed several opportunities to contain the pandemic. He pointed out that other countries around the globe who entered and exited their lockdowns quicker than Britain did, succeeded in curbing the virus’ spread.
Professor Of Global Public Health: Devi Shridhar Image: the Lancet.Com
Dr Angus Dalgleish, who also appeared on the programme held a different view, and argued against another lockdown. The Professor of Oncology at St George’s University of London, espouses the view that another lockdown would ‘unnecessarily’ ‘trash’ livelihoods and damage the economy.
The Consultant Medical Ontocologist is closely affiliated with the Royal College of Physicians of the UK and Australia, Royal College of Pathologists and The Academy of Medical Scientists. He defended competing scientific perspectives, arguing that ‘the point of science is to have a debate’.
Professor Angus Dagleish Image: CancerCentrelondon.co.uk
He told GMB: ‘We’ve got to address this very strongly, not least because of the damage that’s being done to the economy.
‘And the economy means jobs and the livelihoods of our children and the next generation, which has been completely trashed.’
He added: ‘In regards to this virus, I have treated in my job as a general physician young people with flu, pneumonia, and no one shut down the economy for this.
‘We had a big flu epidemic in 2015 where 28,000 people died.
‘We’re talking about 48,000 people now (with Covid) and we’re talking about destroying the economy, destroying the livelihoods and everything of the generation below and I do not think it is necessary.’
He told the ITV show he was inspired to speak out about restrictions after tragically losing two colleagues to suicide in two weeks..
He said: ‘I view the official Covid strategy with mounting alarm.
‘As our nation stares into the abyss of unprecedented recession and social dislocation, the supposed cure is indeed turning out to be far worse than the disease.’
Acknowledging the potential damage of a lockdown to the economy, she urged people to follow Government advice, including if this involves a second lockdown.
Critical
Prof Gabriel Scally is generally pro lockdown measures, and was very critical of early measures to curb the spread of coronavirus, including the decision to allow the four day Cheltenham Festival to go ahead in front of 250,000 people just 10 days before government lockdown measures were introduced earlier this year.
Scientific Advice
He proceeded to question the government’s refusal to adhere to scientists’ advice, after SAGE recommended a circuit break lockdown several weeks ago.
He added that a ‘united view’ would leave the public far less confused.
He said: ‘It would be a lot more constructive for the public if there was a united view on this, but it looks like now increasingly you’ve got the anti-lockdown science and the pro-lockdown and the public are wondering which scientists to believe.”
He called the situation ‘quite a crisis’, adding: ‘It’s very odd and unusual for a government who say they follow the science, not to follow the science on this occasion.’
Professor Devi Sridhar encouraged people to ‘keep hope’ in the face of the confusing mixed messaging, adding: ‘I think a lot of people are feeling fatigued, they’re feeling angry, and they dont want to follow government guidance because they feel: “What’s the point”.
‘But it does make a point. You’re doing this for your family, for your friends, for your communities.’
Experts are split over the need for a ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown, which would see the introduction of a temporary set of clear and effective restrictions designed to get the R rate down.
MPs have been divided over the scientific basis behind a second lockdown would be effective, with many arguing there is no scientific justification to support the 10pm curfew on the hospitality industry.
Many of them have argue this will cripple the sector, force businesses to close and damage the economy unnecessarily.
Each of the scientists clearly have a different take on the pandemic, but Gabriel’s Scally’s view was the most obviously flawed. The most obvious reason the British government have not always followed the scientists advice is because scientists are clearly split on the matter, as Piers Morgan’s original criticism shows.
Its the government’s prerogative which of scientific advice they follow, depending on the particular advice.