While many people think of medicine as a "science" and while medical professionals certain do try to employ science wherever possible, it can often be the case that science is inadequate. Statistical analysis is widely misunderstood and abused. Statistical analysis might provide stunning insight into the biological processes of cockroaches and perhaps even mice, but with human beings the number of unknown, unknowable and uncontrollable factors becomes rather unwieldy. Belligerent atheists typically mistake rather undependable statistics with "science" in their efforts to control the minutia of other people's lives. A major reason health care costs in the United States are so high is that The United States has more people who despite having considerable influence in society still cannot read above a fourth year elementary level (See both political parties). Such people have a "blind" faith in something or other. Some have a blind faith in religion and some have a blind faith in science. Because of their ineptitude at using statistics, belligerent atheists can cause more harm than other people of blind faith.
Particularly troublesome during this pandemic is the number of people who have multiple medical conditions. There is little to no discussion of this problem, yet it is central to the "science." The very existence of the pandemic could be a mere change in the way deaths are reported by various disconnected agencies. Despite claims to the contrary the overall national death rate in 2020 was not very much higher than in 2019. Those more alarming claims use "expected" deaths and other unclear and unsupported numbers to make their cases. In the past if a person had a minor cold or flu and died of a heart attack, the cold or flu might not get much notice in the death records. If that changed there suddenly appears a "pandemic" where none was before. Recent changes in guidelines from the CDC based on a "reduction" in health problems could be nothing more than returning to the earlier methods of counting them. While it is not unethical to count more deaths "from" a virus rather than "with" one, it is most unethical to claim to have solved the problem by merely returning to previous methods. It is also unethical to pretend to address issues when they are actually dodging them. With multiple causes of hospitaliztions and deaths including the virus the number of problem cases will be in the tens of thousands to hundred thousands, the larger with more dependable sample sizes. The discussion of blood clotting or some heart condition in far fewer cases is an arrogant disregard of the real problem.
Although some people expected the pandemic to reduce the number of "anti-vaxxers" it rather obviously has not. The "science" is simply not there. Furthermore quite many people who have no confidence the pandemic is "real" will not say so. Like most truly religious people they prefer to err on the side of caution. They will not knock on your door and try to tell you there is no science. Rather they prefer to let you figure things out on your own. I'm not telling you here there is no science, only that I would like to see better science. Whether the pandemic is "real" or merely the rantings of belligerent atheists, civil authorities did the right thing advising caution. Quite many "religious" people do typically align with most authorities. Quite many will continue to wear masks until no one must. May that be soon. It is not that they are "afraid" of two days of aches and pains. They are obviously not afraid of much worse. It is rather because they do not want to participate in a hoax.
As various social media reconsider allowing Donald Trump to speak on their platforms, it certainly is a wonder what different he might have say. So far everything he has said can be translated to one thing, "tiger blood." He is not a "communicator" in any other sense. He leads by force and rallies, not debate. He seems not to understand that Democrats can cheat all they want and truth properly told still has its own power. Meanwhile social media platforms have not prevented or even questioned the spread of quite much unscientific nonsense from people they happen to consider better at science. It certainly is a wonder what different they might have to say as well.