Did you even read the article? The point was that it's a false dichotomy to say one side believed the science and the other side didn't. Just because someone qu

Did you even read the article? The point was that it's a false dichotomy to say one side believed the science and the other side didn't. Just because someone questions a specific measure, doesn't mean they don't read the science that supports (or doesn't support) the measure. It means we need a more balanced approach that weighs the costs versus the benefits. That's a bigger-picture science than whether a measure does or doesn't reduce the spread.