Why can’t some scientists just admit they were wrong about Covid? | Devi Sridhar

Covid camps are one of the lasting legacies of the Pandemic. Covid camps are people or groups with particular positions taken early on that they then continually reinforce by gathering information, eventually building a base of followers that defend it viciously.

Similar camps were developed around key issues. The emergence of scientists dividing themselves into camps over Covid is novel.

Those who have always compared Covid to seasonal flu and those who have argued for maximum suppression are included in these camps. There are camps for those who have always been against masks, noting the lack of evidence over effectiveness, those who have argued for masks regardless of age and context, and those who analyse their cost and benefit in different situations and age groups.

The essence of science is asking questions, forming hypotheses and revising them based on new data. Covid is constantly changing. The policy response had to modify with a steep rise in Delta cases, which was more severe than the original, and then again with Omicron, which is milder than previous. Many people may have immunity from other coronaviruses.

It has been like seeing something coming through the fog, but not knowing what it was going to be. Humility and flexibility are hallmarks of policy response. In a pre-vaccine era, the optimal way to delay infections was to pursue maximum suppression or a zero-covid response. The chance to have access to scientific tools and live many more healthy years of life was given by every infection averted. We didn't understand the full impact of the virus and so had to take a more cautious approach.

Now that science has largely defanged it, living with Covid requires ensuring widespread vaccination, as well as creating schemes such as the US government's test to treat. If Americans get tested for Covid at a pharmacy, they will be given free antivirals on the spot. Testing, treatments and vaccines mean that governments can find their exit from the Pandemic and manage Covid as an infectious disease.

Instead of changing their position based on new data, some of them keep trying to show how they were still right in early 2020, digging themselves an even deeper hole. The case in point is that of John Ioannidis, who argued in March 2020 that governments were overreacting to the threat of Covid. He mocked the people who were worried that the deaths from Covid-19 in the US would increase. He thought the US might suffer 10,000 deaths. He was cynical that vaccines could be developed in any time period that would affect the trajectory of the epidemic.

The current US death toll is almost one hundred thousand, with most of them being people under the age of 65. These numbers were once seen as crazy. In less than a year, we had developed safe and effective vaccines, and safe and effective antivirals. One would think that these facts would prompt an academic to reconsider their initial assumptions, but instead, they have continued to publish articles solidifying their starting position.

Why is this happening? Why can't academics just admit that they might have made a mistake at the beginning? I think it's a mix of playing to a fanbase that has formed over two years, and the idea of moving with new data. The need is to be proven for oneself and a small group of followers.

Governments and the public have expected scientists to be oracles who can predict the future and have put them in the spotlight. For the sake of debate and the impulse to show two sides instead of trying to find a sensible middle ground, social and mainstream media have amplified extreme positions. The move in society and the workplace towards virtual communication during the Pandemic has made the polarisation worse. Extreme positions have received disproportionate exposure in comparison to the silent majority who seem to understand the complexity of the situation.

I have respect and admiration for scientists who admit to their mistakes and understand that each stage of the epidemic requires a different response based on the latest data, tools and analysis.

The narrative continues to be influenced by experts and influential people stuck in the Covid camps. We should be focused on the best evidence and policies to help us exit the Pandemic safely. This should involve the equitable distribution of vaccines and drugs around the globe, protecting those vulnerable to severe disease and rapid-response public health plans. It is important to remember the principles of humility and flexibility in response, and how they don't fit with the new world of media.

• The University of Edinburgh has a chair in global public health.