In this episode, we’re joined by Professor David Paton, a health economist at the University of Nottingham, to reflect on the UK government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ll examine the costs of lockdown measures, the societal impact, and explore the decision-making process.

A central question in assessing the government's actions is whether they fully considered the costs of their decisions. Rishi Sunak, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, later admitted some Cabinet members tried to raise concerns about the economic and social consequences of lockdowns but were discouraged from speaking out. Professor Paton argues that this highlights a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process, which focused almost entirely on reducing COVID-related deaths and preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed. However, he says this approach overlooked long-term economic and social consequences.

The economic costs were vast. The government spent around £400 billion on measures like the furlough scheme and business support, with £140 billion used to pay people and businesses to stay closed. While some argue these measures were essential, Professor Paton questions what else that money could have been used for, such as improving healthcare or education—services linked to health and longevity. The fiscal consequences are still felt today, with tax increases and cuts to services now on the horizon.

Mental health also suffered, with isolation and uncertainty taking a psychological toll. Professor Paton stresses that these social and mental health costs are just as significant—and harder to quantify—than financial ones.

Prof Paton also argues, the government didn’t explore whether lockdowns were truly effective in reducing COVID cases or saving lives. While some scientific models predicted disaster without lockdowns, they failed to account for the voluntary behavioural changes people were already making. His research shows many people were social distancing and avoiding crowded spaces long before any formal government measures were enforced. Professor Paton says these voluntary actions were likely more impactful than the strict legal mandates that followed.

The podcast also touches on censorship and the suppression of alternative voices during the pandemic. Many experts questioned the effectiveness of lockdowns but faced pressure to conform. Countries like Sweden, which implemented fewer restrictions, fared no worse than those with stricter measures, suggesting there was no one-size-fits-all solution.

Ultimately, Professor Paton argues that future decision-making must include a wider range of voices, with open debate ensuring more balanced and effective responses to public health crises.