As the pandemic draws to a likely close, we can begin to make more informed judgments about what we have lived through.

To begin with, we ought to recognise that, thankfully, Covid-19 did not turn out to be the “Big One” pandemic that infectious disease specialists, both medical and non-medical, have long feared. The Great Plague of Athens ripped through the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa around 430 BC, killing about one-third of the population. The Plague of Justinian in the 540s and the Black Death in the 1340s were similarly lethal. An outbreak of Ebola or a genetic shift in the Mers or influenza viruses would present a similar risk. Covid-19 has been comparatively less deadly, in part because of the rapid development of vaccines.

At times, however, policy-makers did not put Covid-19 into context. Nor did they ask what responses would be possible, effective and proportionate. Indeed, we must recognise that too many interventions were ineffective, poorly evaluated and damaged important institutions. We must learn the right lessons for next time – and the time after, and the time after that.

When I contributed to UK pandemic planning around 2005-06, our work was admired throughout Europe because we approached it as a “whole of society” problem, not solely a public health one. We assigned leadership to the emergency planning team in the Cabinet Office, with its responsibility to engage every government department. Most other countries gave the lead to their health ministry. The UK thought this would focus the response narrowly on medical interests without regard to the wider impact on economy and society. The management of the Covid-19 pandemic throughout the UK has demonstrated that we were correct.

But there are other “never again” lessons from Covid-19.

Do not allow lab-based scientists to rip up established hierarchies of evidence in advising on policy interventions – or, worse, to be indifferent to the need to evaluate social and economic interventions. We need real world evidence of effectiveness, not expert beliefs in things like face masks or ventilation.

Do not rely on the blunt instruments of law and fear to bring the population along for a long haul. These will always produce conflict and injustice, weakening trust in government and public health institutions.

Do not undermine parliamentary accountability or pretend that responsible oppositions do not ask hard questions about the evidence and logic behind policies. The UK has already drifted too close to an elective dictatorship. This should be a moment to strengthen the review of government actions.

Do not treat modellers as oracles forecasting the future. Modelling is really important in its place, which is answering what-if questions from policy-makers, not driving policy.

More fundamentally, the modern world has developed unrealistic expectations of control over nature. In other areas of life, we tolerate risks to a certain level and accept that they cannot be wholly eradicated. Our forebears understood that death was unavoidable but we seem to aspire to immortality.

All these issues have been on the agenda for at least half a century. There have always been better options than those chosen by many governments, not least our own. It is time to re-examine them.

Robert Dingwall is professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University