it’s empirical skepticism, not a bold take. even if you can get the math to line up with reality in this instance, at the very least an epidemiological model i

it’s empirical skepticism, not a bold take. even if you can get the math to line up with reality in this instance, at the very least an epidemiological model isn’t going to tell you why, with any certainty. your reasonings are about why something should work to buttress your beliefs, but you haven’t yet enumerated why any alternative explanation (especially the simpler ones) should or shouldn’t work. that would differentiate your reasoning from popular zealotry. the term ‘science’ has lost meaning in popular/political discussions because it tries to elide uncertainty in just this way.