Should we "follow the science?"

The emphasis by some politicians and reporters that public policy should follow the science is a shame and a sham. By following the science, they mean implementing policies that Dr. Fauci and others who study rates of infection, hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator usage, and deaths from COVID-19 recommend. If these expert scientists tell us that imposing shutdowns, masks, or other dictates would save some level of lives because the rates exceed some level, "following the science" means that the politicians would follow the recommendation and impose the recommended shutdowns, masks, or other dictates. This singular focus on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 ignores the reality that the implementing the recommendations imposes its own costs. What happens to current income when the government commands people not to work? What happens to learning and future incomes when the government commands students to learn remotely? What happens to death rates from other diseases? What happens to rates of depression and suicide now and in the future? This sample of questions shows that anyone trying to determine the best response to COVID-19 should balance many competing priorities.

I agree that the "most elemental duty of the politician [is] the balancing of competing priorities." Politicians who say or imply that that COVID-19 is the only priority shirk their most elemental duty. For reporters not to press them to ask about how they balance competing priorities stifles the honest and difficult debate we need.