I'm sadly not working in the medical domain, so I don't know anything past my 5min internet search (which yield results such as https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/library/pedia/effectiveness-of-lockdowns) it seems that the core issue was not one of diagnosis (they were right in determining that a severe reduction of contacts between humans would reduce the spread) but one of failure in policy-making (medical experts failed to consider that voluntary confinement would be enough to reduce the spread, and that government mandates would not significantly improve the situation while having some severe drawbacks on non-medical subjects). Which, all being said, is not surprising: most medical experts don't have ALSO an expertise in policy-making, and like most peoples, scientists tend to overestimate their skill in domain they're not expert in.

Though, even if they were experts in both, I'm even cautious about calling "following the experts" as being "following the scientific consensus", as one of the prerequisite for the scientific consensus to work as intended is time, which is lacking in urgent situations like a worldwide pandemic.

[And I won't comment on the effects of funding methods in science, as while I understand that the peoples spending money want to ensure that the money they invest is going to bring them even more money, it has many perverted effects on scientists' ethics.]