@RachelAlter007 1. Evidence is still not very certain with this virus. 2. Evidence needs to be traslated for politicians in order to decide the right policy. 3. If fanatics, or "life estranged specialists"(german "Fachidioten"), do the translation, u get, what we have now.

@RachelAlter007 It's funny that the people promoting that term also seem to be the people that complain about the pandemic being politicized. With no awareness of the irony there.

@RachelAlter007 People with endless radical rightwing behaviors calling themselves centrists? noooo waaaay

@TakeThatCDC 😂😂😂😂

@RachelAlter007 Lol

@RachelAlter007 But isn't the evidence based answer to most things "we don't really know"?

@RachelAlter007 I think you can be balanced or centrist. That just means (to me) that you acknowledge the uncertainty in evidence on a particular issue, like schools or masks.

@RachelAlter007 There are evidence-based policies.

@RachelAlter007 Covid is basically the climate debate at x1000, and the bogus centrist fits in with that perfectly.

@RachelAlter007 The comments here are so performatively "how dare you!" There is no uncertainty. The facts are clear. The science has been done.

@RachelAlter007 Throw climate centrist into that mix too.

@RachelAlter007 Amen 🙏

@RachelAlter007 The evidence suggests if every human had absolutely no contact with another human for 3 weeks the virus would be gone. A centrist is somewhere between that strategy and Texas.

@RachelAlter007 Evidence-based policy only provides options for action, which option we chose depends on values, e.g. risk aversion. Experts often fail to acknowledge the official value judgements in their advice.