Each time there has been either an imposition or a renewal of COVID-19 mitigation measures, we are offered the same reflexive justification for these decisions.  We are told we must "follow the science." 

This ubiquitous refrain has become the latest iteration of that most convenient of debate surrogates: the unassailable maxim.  Merely invoking it places one firmly on the side of all sensible people and against the "anti-science" hordes.

At least, that's what we tell ourselves.

The truth is, science is a counselor, not a leader.  Science is simply information.  One cannot "follow the science" any more than one can "follow the library." 

If one proposes a policy, science can be helpful in implementing it effectively.  But one must first propose the policy.  

With respect to COVID-19, the policy was established in the first days of the pandemic and has not changed substantially since.  I suspect you can say it with me: "stop the spread."

We chose to prioritize COVID-19 mitigation over all other considerations.  Science informed the execution of this policy, but science did not, and does not, direct it.

We must stop pretending we are not responsible for that choice.  A critique is long overdue.  We must comprehensively examine both the benefits and costs of our chosen path and correct it if the results are found wanting.

A glance at the global infection rates suggests that our efforts to arrest the spread have failed utterly.  COVID-19 is everywhere.  Each of us will almost certainly be exposed to it, and most of us will become infected at least once.  Any amount of mitigation, however successful, merely delays the inevitable. 

One may argue that our mitigation efforts have succeeded in their original intent: to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.  Perhaps so, although such an assertion requires ample scientific evidence.  After all, the burden of proof lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. 

For the sake of argument, however, let us concede this point, and count this among the benefits of the policy.

So much for the benefits.  What of the costs?

COVID-19 policies destroyed businesses and lives.  They drove many to depression and some to suicide.  They contributed to increased drug abuse and violence.  They deprived our dying loved ones of their family members.  They deprived, and continue to deprive, our nursing home residents of the only thing that makes their remaining lives worth living: the faces, voices, and touch of loved ones and caregivers.

COVID-19 policies stunted the education and social development of our children, instilling them with insecurity and fear.  They pushed the disease burden to working-class people, while the privileged classes cloistered themselves against waves of infection.   They drove families and friends apart, set strangers at each other's throats, and engendered general mistrust and animosity towards government and society alike.  

This is just a smattering of the detrimental effects of these policies.  The true costs are incalculable. 

Given all of this devastation, and knowing that no amount of mitigation can protect us from exposure to COVID-19, why do we continue with this 2020 mindset?  Any minor successes have proven, tragically, to be Pyrrhic victories.  How long do we tolerate this wanton disregard for collateral damage?

It is time to make a different choice. 

We must abandon the futile and destructive efforts to mitigate endless waves of infection, and instead focus on measures that reduce the severity of the infection.  These include such things as the development of effective treatment options, the availability of vaccines, and efforts to encourage good health and nutrition. 

We must reclaim control of our lives, not because COVID-19 is no longer a threat, but because it is a threat that we must learn to live with.

Let us accept responsibility for the consequences of our choices.

Let us unfollow the science.

Gary L Brown is a resident of Clinton, Miss.