> That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. Unfortunately, everything is framed as a battle between those

> That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. Unfortunately, everything is framed as a battle between those who believe in science and those who don't, rationality versus irrationality, experts versus conspiracy theorists, enlightenment versus chaos. There are no "values" experts, only experts in minimizing medical risk, so minimizing medical risk is what we do. If you asked people like us in a vacuum if science provides moral answers, they would say no, of course not, and they would probably say some very pointed things about the moral track record of science. But when they have a hard decision to make, they want an expert, and the experts on disease are scientists. Of course it works out well for us to trust scientists and other highly educated professionals with political questions. They have similar educational backgrounds, similar tastes, and similar economic and power interests. What's good for them is probably fine for us. We shouldn't be surprised when people with different backgrounds, tastes, and economic interests sense something fishy with this arrangement.