When it comes to navigating the pandemic, many proudly proclaim: "Follow The Science [1]." It's a popular and feel-good message. To me, #FollowTheScience [1] means that science [1] is essential to makinggood and rational decisions and implies that science [1] makes policy decisions clear. The first half of that sentence is right. The second half is dangerously wrong. I think we must address what science [1] isand is not.
Of course, science [1] is necessary to navigate the pandemic. Science [1] --in the form of randomized trials -- allows us to separate therapies that work from those that do not.
At the same time, science [1] will never be sufficient to guide choices and trade-offs. Science [1] cannot make value judgments. Science [1] does not determine policy. Policy is a human endeavor that combinesscience [1] with values and priorities. In other words, science [1] can help quantify the increased risk (or lack thereof) of school reopening on SARS-Cov-2 spread, and help quantify the educational losses fromcontinued closure,but science [1] cannot tell you whether to open or close schools. Making the decision requires values, principles, a vision of the type of society we want to be. How much do we care aboutthe kids that rely on public school? Is it enough to offset a theoretical (but unsubstantiated) risk of viral spread? On this topic, I agree with others that we have chosen poorly.
Links:
[1] https://www.thebereancall.org/taxonomy/term/58/science
[2] https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89856