Following the science

‘Perhaps we need to learn to manage uncertainty and accept that not all actions can be based on ‘evidence’, because the evidence and scientific knowledge, including the impact of full lockdowns relating to this pandemic, are still emerging.’

Barely a day goes by without at least one media outlet reporting that the Government is not following the ‘science’. This claim assumes that we are all using the term science in a universal way, as if the many scientific disciplines are not distinct. Scientific findings and propositions are contestable; it is through seeking to replicate findings and testing propositions that scientific knowledge, that is, science, is progressed.

It seems that the epidemiology related to infections and associated modelling of case data has taken primacy to the neglect of other sciences, such the epidemiology of other significant health problems, such as cancer, heart disease and mental ill-health, as well as the social sciences of psychology (other than controlling pandemic behaviours), sociology and economics. The underpinning assumptions of the pandemic modelling are often not disclosed in the public announcements, with the ‘costs’ of the loss of economic activity and interrupted education for children drowned out by vociferous spokespeople. It may be that, at a time of great uncertainty, people just crave certainty, and apply any label to a discipline or claim, in a desire to understand what is going on and what they may expect. Perhaps we need to learn to manage uncertainty and accept that not all actions can be based on ‘evidence’, because the evidence and scientific knowledge, including the impact of full lockdowns relating to this pandemic, are still emerging.