I think free speech in moral debates is imperative. I am far more torn when it comes to science.
The Hart group are a rag tag group of a few ‘scientists’, pretty much all from ‘new’ universities, who have chosen, for one reason or another, to dissent from the best and brightest from around the World.
I do agree with the point made above that, especially in the biological sciences, where it is impossible to control confounding variables, you will get scientific dissent and debate. However, we do have good statistical techniques to examine data, and when 95% of top scientists coalesce around a viewpoint, you either have to respect them or, ideally, read what they say and see if it makes sense. To do this, however, you do need a basic understanding of maths and statistics (A levels would do to at least understand the arguments).
There is so much evidence that has been linked to showing that lockdowns are the only realistic response to a pandemic both in terms of health and economics.
In addition, we have seen in April 2020 and Jan 2021 what happens with too much contact: hospitals get overwhelmed and organisations close. Many many schools closed because of staff sickness despite being ‘allowed’ to stay open.
Pandemics do damage in many ways, health, economy and psychology. This is a given. Our responses can mitigate this but, of course, like anything, they also have negatives.