People on this platform, I assume, are familiar with the scientific consensus on these topics and generally side with the science. But one has to understand, that these decisions are not made directly by scientists but by politicians who have scientific advisors. And as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic, which can result in seemingly unscientific decisions that go against the "obvious" findings.
Except this decision was made by the relevant authorities and not by politicians. If anything, Danish politicians are probably not keen on this decision, but have chosen to respect it.
It should also be noted that Denmark has a relatively low infection rate, which is probably why politicians has decided not to interfere in the decision.
It should also be noted that public health officials are usually the lowest rungs of the ladder when it comes to ability in medicine. Running your own practice, running a research institute or chair or even just working in a hospital is far more interesting financially as well as for the challenge. Becoming a public servant as a doctor is a way out when your marks are just above passing or your motivation is insufficient for anything with even minimal amounts of stress (of course not atm, but that is an exception).
I'd really like to see some data on this, because that's a giant assumption to make. There's many reasons an able person would choose to work in public health beyond that they are apparently too bad at medicine to do anything else.
The scientific consensus on issues like this as they emerge evolves rapidly though. And I think "degree of uncertainty" is something that is lost on educated lay people when they try to keep up to date with the science. Just look at the messaging surrounding masks in March 2020.
Public health issues are further complicated by what messages are thought to result in the best population behavior. There are articles in medical journals discussing the issue of people refusing to take the less strong vaccine, it is an entire topic of research in itself how to communicate with the public. It is not out of the question to strategically spread somewhat false messaging, like "all the vaccines are the same!" when obviously they are not.
Finally, this kind of thing is always going to involve value judgements that don't have an objective answer. How different is death of a 20 year old vs death of an 80 year old? How do you compare side effects like partial paralysis vs permanent lung damage? They are apples to oranges problems. But in cases where we have to act cohesively as a population, a judgement has to be made by someone. Plus in general I think medicine tends to not trust people to make their own well thought out decisions, for better or worse.
Messaging around masks is a perfect example of politics ignoring science and public health officials just trying to justify political decisions by cherry-picking studies or plainly stating falsehoods "for the greater good".
My theory is that what is call as 'science' today has replaced mainstream religion.
So it is indeed a from of religion.
Most human have a "religion" template in them and they fill in that with some prevailing common belief. In the past it used to the religion containing gods, now it's environment, the virus etc.
(Though with the environment/virus as with traditional religion, there are always elements of truth mixed in)
> as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic
Are we really going to allow ourselves to slide into such naivete, especially after we have suffered through a year-long global orgy of corruption and violence at the hands of these same politicians?
I wonder what science the Biden administration used to determine it really should sell all those weapons to the UAE. [0]
What was the science behind the West's decision - also led by Biden - to continue bombing civilian infrastructure in Yemen? [1]
Politicians use science as a rallying cry, not as an actual philosophical fundamental. We would be a lot better off if they even tried to practice people-ruling while utilizing the "hard science," but we must all come to the realization that they are simply science-adjacent. None of the ghouls in elected office - in any country on the planet - have any idea how to incorporate "science," into the act of ruling over others. But perhaps the more important question is: why should we even value such an incorporation, if it were valid?
Scientists study the natural world, observe it, and document it for others to observe on their own. Politicians - if we were to be very charitable - move other peoples' money around & redistribute it. There is only a small overlap in these concentric circles and it's probably too large as it is. The mandate of the politician is largely illogical, and for this reason trying to conflate it with science is not just sophomoric and ridiculous - it's incredibly dangerous.
