You can only predict things on the basis of what you know and what the likelihoods are.
You can also only draw up 'best advice' within the set parameters you have.
One of the key points with covid, has always been precisely what we don't know. One of the golden rules when considering science is to think about the known unknowns and also to think about the unknown unknowns.
Covid has highlighted the importance of the unknown unknowns and how they can throw everything.
In terms of the scientist parameters, they don't have to take into account things like social unrest. We know that behavioural scientists have been involved in this and have been able to get an idea of where compliance with restrictions have started to breakdown. This will be something politicians will be particularly aware of and will have to make decisions about - the science may say one thing but whether the options on the table as recommended are viable politically are a different but valid consideration to make.
If you put in a measure which doesn't have full widespread public consent you don't limit transmission as much as you intend (so its net benefit is minimal but the net cost might be significant). You need to bring the public along with you. This is a valid consideration for politicians whether we admit it or not.
From the word go, it was made clear that the public would only tolerate restrictions to a certain degree and whilst they felt it benefitted them.
What we have seen in the UK is the public largely being on board with restrictions and unlike pretty much anywhere else in the West we havent seen much in the way of protest. Thats significant and should not be ignored. The government haven't been a million miles off what the public want throughout. Yes they could have done better, but equally they have not had a situation where there has been outright revolt either.
That does suggest the government were more in tune with public feeling than many would like to admit.
Where there has been perhaps the biggest failings hasn't been with the medical science its ironically, given the above, been with the behavioral science.
As it goes the behavioural scientists having nothing historic to compare with, estimated levels of compliance would be much lower than they actually were doing the early stages of the pandemic. We need to keep this strongly in mind.
This was a good thing initially. But it also perhaps suggests the fear factor was greater than was anticipated, which also had ramifications indirectly. We know that harm indirectly was greater as a result - this is stuff like patients being unable to access an early diagnosis because doctors made it more difficult to get access to appointments than anyone had anticipated. The impact on children was also vastly under estimated - again because we had no previous comparibles to use as a baseline.
This would always had the potential to put any other scientific estimates way off.
There were other things too, that politicians had to consider than scientists don't.
Budget is the hard one right now. The cost of free lfts is the equivalent of putting that extra penny on NI. I don't think many people would be happy paying it, thinking it would go on the wider health and social care budget only to find its just gone on lfts. The alternative would be to raise more taxes, borrow more or make cuts to other things already badly effected by the pandemic. This is a consideration that scientists dont have to think about.
Again uptake of lfts has perhaps been much higher than anticipated in recent months.
Covid scientists do not have to consider educational issues in the same way as immediate health issues covid and none covid alike. Its not their priority. But it is for politicians. Also the long term public health implications over stuff like social mobility and poverty come into play here too. They are more for politicians than for scientists.
Scientists also do not have to consider major shifts in the cost of living that government do. These have had a significant impact. Supply chains were a consideration as they were likely to be hit by covid, but this was also compounded in the uk by unresolved Brexit issues, the Evergreen issue and fuel security and supply. These have all massively changed public priorities and concerns. As well as pressure on politicians.
The reality is that I don't think there is enough understanding of the impact of unknowns. Which are both predictable and unpredictable. We got a stroke of bad luck with Alpha in the uk, but one of good luck with Omicron. Predictions being wildly off, have been at points where there has been a major change in the nature of the beast which has fallen at the edges of probabilities based on knowns. Scientists have to make predications based on probabilities. If things had remained within knowns, i think the predictions probably would have been a lot more accurate.
As it stands we don't currently know whether we will get a much more severe variant this winter. Its very much on the table as a possibility. How much you invest in it being a likely probability both economically and psychologically is merely a matter for debate due to unknowns.
As it goes the government took a gamble on omicron - probably based on information from behavioural scientists who felt that fear of losing Christmas was sufficient to self limit behaviour, and by the time Christmas was over the data coming in was beginning to support the government's position. The timing was just favourable to government in political terms thats all.
Thats blown open public mistrust in scientists. Thats a worry for the future for a variety of reasons. Its likely to affect compliance if we do get a bad variant and its likely to undermine trust in science in other areas.
All because the public don't properly understand the concept of unknowns and the interaction between science and politics and the limitations of remit.
No one has ultimately been 'wrong'. Better decisions could and indeed perhaps should have been made at times. And underlying data was flawed at times - an admission of weakness that was made very early on and not denied. We had no historical precedent. Thats very unusual.
What we did get right with the science is vaccines. They have been largely MORE successful than anyone dared hope - with the possible exception of sinovac.
What has happened in recent months is the public have compared omicron with the first wave and concluded that restrictions weren't merited in the uk given its demographics. Thats a conclusion for the ignorant. No data supports this. Places with lower compliance / more key workers / less vaccine uptake have higher death rates when adjusted for age. Age being the more significant risk factor. Places with more deprivation have been most at risk but arguably now are most at risk from financial issues and educational issues going forward.
We need to recognise those.
We needed restrictions until we had vaccines. That isn't really a debate if you look at uk data. The Denmark argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny due to our demographics being different in numerous ways (economics, density, genetics, lifestyle, underlying health).
And none of this is helpful to argue over and understand unless we are willing to fully take onboard the concept of the unknown unknowns though.
You can only make predictions based on historical precidence and known clinical data. Both of which we've lacked. You can't accuse people of 'failing' when they haven't got the most basic of tools - things that are known. Its just a risk that is unavoidable and always possible.