ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces the concept of scientific dogma – propositions asserted by a scientific authority and inappropriately maintained in the face of recalcitrant evidence – and applies it to the case of lockdown. The authors analyse how claims about the necessity and effectiveness of lockdown persisted despite data that challenged them. Using UK case studies, they examine high-profile estimates that the first lockdown saved hundreds of thousands of lives, showing how these figures shifted when data were corrected and how reasoning sometimes suffered from the ecological fallacy, circularity, or a drift away from the original policy target. The discussion covers two widely cited claims – that lockdown saved 470,000 and, later, 40,000 lives – assessing their evidential and methodological basis. The chapter argues that dogma around lockdown narrowed strategic thinking, inhibiting exploration of alternative or combined interventions better suited to different contexts, and offers a cautionary example of how even well-intentioned science can constrain effective policy when certainty is overstated.
