There seems to be a thing among those who love to proclaim a love of “science” in everything, that somehow the information from science decides policy. Information from a scientific endeavor does not automatically equate to a mandate for policy.
This cultural inclination is all the more worrisome, because it is a reoccurence of the same assumptions of value and truth that make archaeo-mythological religions and their aspects of “faith” and “worship” so dangerous in light of representative government, but from a people who should know better. And they should know better, it seems to me, because they take on this new culture of “science!” specifically as a rejection of faith and Biblical literalism, and all the fallout of such practices.
Policy is largely a matter of philosophy and selecting particular value system(s) that inform the structuring and maintenance of the government represented by those policies. The United States government is built on a value system that, among other things, proclaims separation of church and state. And these matters of science and deciding what to do based on interpretations of the findings of scientific endeavors are matters that fall into the personal value systems of religion. They do not absolutely inform the values or decisions of state.
A recent, primary example of such is these recent and ongoing issues with Covid-19. Science may very well find that isolation and wearing masks and getting vaccines is effective in battling a contagious illness. But those findings are irrelevant in and of themselves when it comes to deciding actual policy for the United States government. Philosophy informs policy primarily. Is it the role of government to “protect” citizens absolutely from these occurrences? Is it the goal to run government in whatever way possible such that “we” “win”? Is it the role of government to strictly adhere to its given mandate, and let people manage their response to natural difficulties, such as contagion, themselves, as they each see fit? Should government be a protective parent, making sure to absolutely protect the lives of each of its “children” because of some value system that says every human life must be forced to live at all costs? Or simply an arbiter between the excessive overreach of one individual into the realm of another’s right to decide and choose how to respond for themselves and for their family? (Think carefully on this, in all the realm of things you may care about, if you are one of these “science!” culture fanatics.)
The observations of science relative to Covid-19 does not decide how government or people in general should respond. Humans working with each other and deciding what they value and what they’re aiming for decide these things. One can, and perhaps certainly should, use the observations of scientific endeavors to inform policy, but any interpretation of those observations does not automatically determine policy. That is not the nature of the principles behind the United States government or a government of personal freedoms and responsibilities.
To think so, is going the dangerous direction of creating the science equivalent of the Shariyah law state. Science can be used and manipulated to justify just as many horrendous things as religious faith can be. A Shariyah law-equivalent government driven by “science” is just as wrong as one driven by Christianity.
We are not a “Christian” state, and, likewise, we are not a “science” state. Separation of church and state — it’s a difficult pill to swallow when it’s your value system you’re excitedly trying to endorse on everyone, but it’s a principle that is more important to protect for many extremely good reasons than enforcing the supposed edicts of scientific findings even if under the “good intentions” of “saving lives”.