SAGE Advisor Admits Negative Lockdown Consequences Were Never Considered

A SAGE advisor for the UK government who pushed for extended lockdowns admits that SAGE modeling never included the negative consequences of lockdowns, but now says they should have been included.

Image Credit: Наркологическая Клиника

Professor John Edmunds, who acted as a SAGE team member and an advisor to the UK government, is part of a growing number of people who once wholeheartedly supported stricter and longer lockdowns, but is now having to admit that they were a big mistake. Now he is trying to completely distance himself from the entire lockdown narrative.

The Royal Society Open Science journal published a study that found that a major effect of lockdowns on children was that they suffered from clinical depression.

Earlier this year, Johns Hopkins University also produced a major study which confirmed that lockdowns across the world have ultimately made more of a severe, long-lasting and detrimental impact on society than they have made in any beneficial way, leading to researchers concluding that they are “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

At the end of last year, Edmunds said that in the absence of a lockdown there would be 6,000 Omicron deaths every day; however, the number of recorded fatalities never even reached that figure.

Now Professor Edmunds has publicly admitted that the economic chaos and the health effects caused by those lockdowns were effects that “in principle” could have been taken into account when modeling, “but in practice they were not.”

In the Summer of 2021, the professor pushed for another extended lockdown because he believed that the government was “taking a risk” by relaxing regulations; he now says that looking back, the predictions forecasted by SAGE were “truly eye-watering.”

Edmunds said that: “The epidemiological model is only one component and I wondered and I worried that we’d had too much weight.”

He then went on to say that: “there is of course an enormous economic impact from many of the interventions and other indirect impacts on psychological health and so on. Now these in principle could be included but in practice they were not.”