Are You Basing Your Covid 19 Strategy on Science or Are You Really Just a Moralist?

So, the thought has occurred that the strategy to accept the authoritarian take over of the economy and individual freedom of movement and assembly is based on "ethics". It's a moral strategy, not a scientific one.

Oh, we're told it's "based" on "science" except, it's not. Primarily, the hysteria surrounding covid 19 is based on math - the numbers and statistics. The only science I see, as a basis, is the scientific knowledge of how viruses spread and the singularly focused agenda on the development of furthering vaccines.

But, even then, what science there is at the base, is just a base. The reason for shutting down society is an ethical/moral value and argument. Based on what we know the "ethically" (morally) "right" thing to do is force everyone into seclusion against their will and with the threat of consequences for rebellion so that we can "save lives". Saving lives isn't a scientific argument, it's a moral argument. 

As I see it (and given that I'm a Christian who believes in creation) I'm provided with no shortage of personal satisfaction to be the one to point out that herd immunity is science. It's not math and it's not ethics or morality.

The virus will run through humanity. As these, harder-for-humans-to-handle, crossover viruses have been prominent in the last decade, it will have the evolutionary effect of adaptation in the human race.

With a longer, forest view of the fact that crossover viruses have routinely cropped up over the past decade, one who understands that adaptation is a thing (and I do, I just don't believe that we have adapted from or will adapt and/or mutate into different species), ought to see the overarching narrative as part of the evolutionary process of humanity. Humans are, at this time, learning to adapt to new kinds of biological threats. #Science. The fear surrounding covid 19 as having the potential to wipe out humanity because we're not able to adapt quickly enough is preposterous given that the math shows a 98% survival rate.

Freaking out and trying to prevent this occurrence through global authoritarianism may have science as a partial informant but, it's not living by science, it's submitting oneself to a form of morality which we've labeled "ethics". It is a moral judgment about what must be done, which is why you have ardent believers proselytizing with Facebook profile banners and virtually walking behind dissenters, ringing their bells and proclaiming, "Shame, shame, shame."

Science is just information about what is. Embracing a singular view of an ethic or a morality is what causes us to be emotionally disturbed by anyone who disagrees. 

So are you a scientist or are you a moralist?