Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

There was one slogan that was repeated during COVID that perfectly encapsulates the degeneration and capture of science: "Follow the science".

That's not how science works. Religions are "followed". Science is based on questioning and skepticism and falsifiability.

Vaccine denial's conclusions are so woefully unscientific that one can excuse the lack of technical precision in the synthesis of a pro-vaccination slogan.

True, but practically speaking: on the flip-side, basically nobody affected by the pandemic had the resources to execute on hypothesis-testing during the pandemic. There wasn't anything else they could do but decide what sources they trusted and follow them.

There are legitimate reasons to be concerned over the COVID vaccines that have nothing to do with 'vaccine denial' [1]. What does 'vaccine denial' even mean? I've never met anyone who denies the existence of vaccines.

[1] Such as the elevated cardio vascular risk for young men that exceeded their risk from COVID.

People saying that didn't mean it as "obey the science," they meant, "follow the science to the conclusions it leads you to."

For example, people would ask public health officials what they thought about things, and the data wouldn't be sufficient to say with certainty. So they said they'd follow the science, meaning "we'll make a decision based on data."

You can criticize a lot of unscientific decisions that people made after saying that, but you've misinterpreted the phrase.

If we know that [1] is true, then we know it because of science. So believing it is not against trusting the science.

> People saying that didn't mean it as "obey the science," they meant, "follow the science to the conclusions it leads you to."

People saying that absolutely meant "obey the science" to the point that a substantial number of them [4] wanted to incarcerate and deprive of their livelihood anyone that didn't obey their idea of science.

- https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/violating-coronavirus-...

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/06/...

- https://oaklandpostonline.com/31966/features/my-familys-smal...

[4] https://www.statista.com/chart/23458/support-for-future-lock...

> What does 'vaccine denial' even mean?

It's a shorthand for "science denial" about vaccines.

See also: The belief that vaccines cause autism.

What does this have to do with 'trusting the science'. I'm wondering what the phrase 'vaccine denial' means.

You're making an enormous leap from "follow the science" to health policy and then again to legal consequences of violating local laws.

No one said, "'The Science' told us to arrest people for going to church!" The science did (and does) say that a huge amount of the spread of Covid was due to church attendance (and gyms, concerts, and clubs) at the time, particularly because of rapid singing/breathing and close quarters in those settings.

What people decide to do with that isn't scientific. It's local policy.

When you have a system where people are legally entitled to free health care (as they are in emergencies in the US), then the government should have a right to tell them to cut out unnecessary activities in an extreme crisis that had depleted local medical resources. It's just as easy to hold religious services on Zoom.

I would have preferred that when people were caught violating these laws, they were allowed to continue, but only if they signed a document forfeiting their right to emergency medical care.

> You're making an enormous leap from "follow the science" to health policy and then again to legal consequences of violating local laws.

You are trying to mince words there.

Can you please explain how it is possible to "obey the science" (which these people called for) from a purely political "health policy" perspective but from not "legal consequences" perspective?

What are the "health policy" policies that are to be implemented to "obey the science" (as they were asking for), that don't demand any "legal consequences"?

P.S.: Also, your suggestion of denying aid to these people is just totalitarian, actually. Let's do the same about obese people, then: that would cut health spending by more than half for everyone else.