Effective management of global crises relies on expert judgment of their societal effects. How accurate are such judgments? In the spring of 2020, we asked behavioral scientists (N = 717) and lay Americans (N = 394) to make predictions about COVID-19 pandemic-related societal change across social and psychological domains. Six months later we obtained retrospective assessments for the same domains (Nscientists = 270; NlayPeople = 411). Scientists and lay people were equally inaccurate in judging COVID’s impact, both in prospective predictions and retrospective assessments, and when using both directional and rank-order estimates. For both groups, the magnitude of estimated change was off by more than 20%. Less than half of participants accurately predicted the direction of changes. Critically, these insights go against public perceptions of behavioral scientists’ ability to forecast such changes (NlayPeople = 203; Nacademics/policy-makers = 30): behavioral scientists were considered most likely to accurately predict societal change and most sought after for recommendations across a wide range of professions. Taken together, we find that behavioral scientists and lay people fared poorly at predicting the societal consequences of the pandemic and misperceived what effects it may have already had.