> positions advocating for continuing combatting the pandemic get downvoted NOTE: My goal here is not to abjudicate Covid or any other contentious topic, but t

> positions advocating for continuing combatting the pandemic get downvoted NOTE: My goal here is not to abjudicate Covid or any other contentious topic, but to try and give a brief explanation of the disconnect between people in the "science bubble" and those you call "far-right trolls". You've never actually been disagreeing about science. You've been disagreeing about risk-management decisions. What I think a lot of scientists have gotten wrong, particularly in the last few years with covid but also with bigger topics like climate change, is that science is a totally different field from risk-management. A scientist can give you data about the world via the scientific method. A scientist can tell you that Covid is ~X% lethal for a woman at 57 years of age or that a medical treatment is ~Y% effective when administered within 48 hours of infection, or that a medical treatment poses ~Z% risk of complications. But a scientist can't tell you what decisions to make in light of that data. A scientist can't use science to tell you objectively whether or not it's worth ruining the world economy and social cohesion to fight a particular illness, or whether or not some individual who experiences X% risk of a disease should take a medication with a Y% risk of complications. That decision making process is never science: that is risk-management. Unfortunately, much of the politicized science in the last few years has taken the form of risk-management. You have scientists on very difficult topics saying things like "The science says we must do X, Y, and Z" when this is false. An objectively correct human action or decision is never the outcome of any science experiment.