Did governments get COVID-19 wrong? New book challenges ‘follow the science’ approach

A new book is reigniting debate over how governments and scientific advisors handled the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that dissenting voices were sidelined and key decisions may have caused avoidable harm.

In Power, Knowledge and COVID-19: The Making of a Scientific Orthodoxy, authors Pieter Streicher and philosopher Alex Broadbent examine how science informed policy, and where it may have gone wrong.

They argue that a dominant scientific narrative emerged during the pandemic, limiting debate and shaping global responses in ways that did not always fit local realities.

‘Follow the science’ — but whose science?

The book challenges the widely used slogan ‘follow the science’, questioning who actually spoke for science during the crisis.

Streicher points to the strong influence of modelling by institutions such as Imperial College London, which helped inform guidance from the World Health Organisation.

According to the authors, this led to blanket recommendations, including lockdowns, being applied across countries with vastly different conditions.

They argue that this ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach failed to account for factors such as informal settlements and economic vulnerability in poorer countries like South Africa.

Lockdowns: benefits overstated?

The authors say lockdowns did have an impact in slowing transmission, but claim the scale of that impact was overestimated.

Early models, based largely on data from China and Europe, suggested lockdowns could dramatically reverse infection trends.

However, Streicher argues that different modelling approaches may have produced more modest estimates sooner.

“We’re not saying lockdowns did not have an effect,” he said. “But the magnitude of that effect was significantly overestimated.”

South Africa imposed a strict lockdown early in the pandemic but lifted it after just over two months, while cases were still rising.

The authors argue this decision ultimately aligned better with the country’s realities, where prolonged restrictions carried severe economic and social costs.

Dissenting voices ‘stifled’

A central claim in the book is that scientific debate during COVID-19 became overly rigid, discouraging alternative views, even from experts.

Streicher says strongly worded, black-and-white claims made it harder to express nuanced positions.

“If you make a statement that lockdowns are highly effective, the counter becomes that they don’t work at all,” he said.

He argues that this dynamic reduced the quality of public debate and may have affected real-world outcomes.

The book suggests that more open scientific discussion could have improved decision-making and potentially reduced both deaths and economic damage.

Masks and conflicting evidence

The debate extended beyond lockdowns to other measures such as mask mandates.

Streicher says different scientific disciplines prioritise different types of evidence, leading to conflicting conclusions.

Some studies suggested masks were effective, while others, particularly randomised controlled trials, showed limited benefit.

He argues that both sides of the debate were often overly absolute, despite the reality being more complex.

Emergency conditions and scientific authority

The authors acknowledge that uncertainty and urgency during a global crisis can encourage more rigid thinking.

They also warn that scientists, when placed in positions of influence over policy, are not immune to the same pressures that affect other institutions.

“Science can also be overly dogmatic,” Streicher said.

The concern, he added, is that a small group of experts came to dominate global decision-making, limiting broader scientific input.

Lessons for future pandemics

Looking back, the authors say countries like South Africa improved their response over time by developing local modelling and adapting to changing data.

They argue that future responses should rely less on external models and more on context-specific analysis.

The book calls for greater openness to dissenting scientific views and more balanced assessments of both the benefits and harms of public health measures.

Related: Covid decisions still under scrutiny

— Nearly six years after the pandemic, dozens of COVID-19 PPE corruption cases are still under investigation, highlighting long-running concerns about how emergency decisions were handled.

— Government leaders have also acknowledged that tensions between scientists and policymakers complicated parts of South Africa’s response, raising questions about how expert advice was interpreted.

For more detailed information, listen to Streicher on CapeTalk using the audio player below: