Science is necessary to good decision-making on COVID-19.
Science isn& #39;t sufficient for good decision-making decision making on COVID-19. To claim it is masks political judgements and choices for which leaders must be held accountable, and so is deeply dangerous. https://twitter.com/socratext/status/1252866197239914496">https://twitter.com/socratext...

Science speaks to outcomes: it explains what will happen to the infection if we do particular things (allow gatherings), what we need to do in order achieve particular outcomes (like flattening the infection curve) what will happen if we don& #39;t do certain things (provide PPE).

But first, science is uncertain and there are risks to any approach. It is not a scientific decision as to how to tolerate risk, it is a political decision. So, reopening schools carries some risk of increasing infection. How much risk are we prepared to tolerate - and to whom?

Second, how do we value outcomes and balance the importance of different outcomes, and different outcomes to different groups? That isn& #39;t science. It is the heart of politics. It needs to be discussed openly and honestly rather than claiming & #39;we are just following the science& #39;.

Indeed it is a form of technocratic autocracy which denies debate by claiming & #39;the boffins have it& #39; and which discredits science by using us to deny the public its voice. So, yes, listen to science, but never trust the politician who says & #39;I& #39;m just following the science& #39;.