Is “the science” on masks and lockdowns about to flip again?

At first we were told not to wear masks. Then masks became a cause celebre. And now I hear that more and more scientists are saying they’re useless at best.

Same with lockdowns. We were told it was the only way, and aren’t those Swedes stupid? But now we’re hearing they cause more harm than help.

It’s plain as day that this has primarily been a political and not a scientific issue. That’s both good and to be expected. Public policy is a political matter. It should be informed by science, but scientists can’t set public policy. It’s not their area of expertise.

But “the science” has been shifting around a lot, and most of the media went all in on masks and lockdowns. Some alternative media went completely the other direction. Both sides claim to be “following the science.” Were they really?

More importantly, since this has become such an emotional, partisan issue, will people be able to change their minds if (when) the science changes?

“Following the science” requires you to hold things somewhat loosely, since “the science” adapts as we learn new facts. But many people have become so dogmatic about this stuff that it will be hard for them to change.

How far should the questioning go on Judge Barrett’s religious views?

It’s strictly forbidden to have a religious test for office in the United States, but it is reasonable to ask a person if their moral, social, political, religious or economic convictions will interfere with their ability to do their job. After all, it’s not just religion that can cause a problem. People have non-religious convictions that can interfere with their ability to judge impartially.

How far can you go down the road of questioning the influence of a person’s religious beliefs without breaking the prohibition on a religious test for office?

There are some things that would clearly be illegal religious tests, such as rule that a person has to be a Trinitarian, or swear allegiance to the pope, or be baptized in order to hold office.

But it gets tricky the further you get from such obvious examples. What about requiring that a person hold to a religious point of view — say, that all men are created equal? Can we require that from a candidate? It’s an extraordinarily useful dogma that lies at the heart of our system and laws, but … it really is a religious idea. What if someone didn’t hold to it? Would that disqualify him?

Judge Barrett’s adoptions and the absurdly racist accusations from the left

One theme in the fight over Judge Barrett has to do with the fact that she adopted two kids from Haiti. There are a lot of angles on that story, but the one I find particularly troubling is the idea that cross-racial adoption is a bad thing — as if a person’s race determines what culture they should be raised in, and to raise them in another culture is wrong. That’s ridiculous, but it’s also extraordinarily racist.

Why isn’t it called out as such?