> A ragtag coalition of public-health activists believe that America’s pandemic restrictions are too lax—and they say they have the science to prove it. The ta

> A ragtag coalition of public-health activists believe that America’s pandemic restrictions are too lax—and they say they have the science to prove it. The tagline of this article. I wonder, first of all, do those who advocate for more/continued restrictions recognize that there are tradeoffs to be considered? And if there are tradeoffs, isn't that a political question? Where does this weird assumption that political propositions can be "proved" objectively by "science" come from?