I wonder what "the science" said?
Because all "the science" can do is give you information that is useful for making decisions--"the science" doesn't make decisions for you.
Lockdowns are a political/economic/social decision. It's a risk-reward decision. Locking down has severe political/economic/social consequences. Dead bodies piling up en masse has different severe political/economic/social consequences. "The science" doesn't tell you which consequences are worse, and for whom.
I supported the initial lockdown for two reasons. First and foremost, it was because "the science" didn't have enough answers, but this thing looked bad enough that the precautionary principle warranted a strong response IMHO. Second, I think the initial lockdown was very useful as a mental "reset" to make the country take this thing seriously...
I supported [and still support] mask mandates... They're minimally intrusive and appear [according to "the science"] to be quite effective at mitigating spread. I wouldn't relax them until we've gone a few more months and a much higher proportion of the population has been vaccinated. By May or so, I expect that just about anyone who wants the vaccine has probably gotten it, and if people choose not to get the vaccine and then choose not to wear a mask... Well ya get what ya get.
And I would have REALLY liked to see much more consistent messaging to the public about what contributes the MOST to spread--gatherings with members outside your household un-masked. For humanity we cannot isolate forever, but the messaging should have highlighted that the frequency and the number of participants of those gatherings being critically important to the potential spread and damage they cause.
"The science" says a return to school for kids is low-risk. Thus when comparing it to the social and developmental cost of keeping kids isolated, the limited efficacy of distance learning in relation to in-person learning, and the economic cost for working parents who are impacted by their kids being home during school hours, the balance should have supported a return to school.
I didn't support the returns to lockdown, however, because I feel like they locked down low-risk activity (economic interactions where both parties are masked, outdoor dining, etc) without having any control over the high-risk activity (gatherings with members outside your household sans-mask). Listening to "the science" should have told us that we should focus on messaging about the high-risk activity and not bear the economic cost of locking down the low-risk activity.
Does that mean I'm not listening to "the science"? Because I think on a number of these topics, OAM disagrees with me and yet he claims the mantle of listening to "the science".
