A recent publication defined lockdown “revisionism” as “the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures.” We used this publication to analyze the claim that questioning lockdowns or other public health interventions and mandates amounts to lockdown “revisionism” and “misinformation”. We suggest that the term ‘revisionism’, like the term ‘misinformation’ contained in its definition, were merely labels used to denigrate evidence-based contrary conclusions so as to avoid having to critically appraise the best evidence itself. We aim to describe how, by glossing over topics without fully engaging with the best evidence available, the assertions made do not withstand critical scrutiny. We suggest that, to ensure lessons are learned for the future, we must be willing to engage in rigorous and open debate – calling reasonable critical scrutiny of evidence ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’, or ‘revisionism’ is not supportive of this goal. Finally, we suggest that a main lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is not to have an increased focus on so-called ‘misinformation’ and ‘revisionism’, but rather to re-discover the emergency management process of making decisions that ensure multidisciplinary representation, transparency, cost-benefit analyses of courses open using the best evidence available, and that protects against censorship and groupthink.

COVID-19 is the first known coronavirus pandemic. Nevertheless, the seasonal circulation of the four milder coronaviruses of humans – OC43, NL63, 229E and HKU1 – raises the possibility that these viruses are the descendants of more ancient coronavirus pandemics. This proposal arises by analogy to the observed descent of seasonal influenza subtypes H2N2 (now extinct), H3N2 and H1H1 from the pandemic strains of 1957, 1968 and 2009, respectively. Recent historical revisionist speculation has focussed on the influenza pandemic of 1889-1892, based on molecular phylogenetic reconstructions that show the emergence of human coronavirus OC43 around that time, probably by zoonosis from cattle. If the “Russian influenza”, as The Times named it in early 1890, was not influenza but caused by a coronavirus, the origins of the other three milder human coronaviruses may also have left a residue of clinical evidence in the 19th century medical literature and popular press. In this paper, we search digitised 19th century British newspapers for evidence of previously unsuspected coronavirus pandemics. We conclude that there is little or no corpus linguistic signal in the UK national press for large-scale outbreaks of unidentified respiratory disease for the period 1785 to 1890.