SCIENCE IS A PROCESS.

So I keep telling you, and the best practitioners, which is to say, people who might not be on the payroll of this agency or that business or in the tank for some public official, will admit as much.

It comes as a surprise to the punditry.  "We’re Not Used to Scientists Telling Us, ‘We’re Not Sure.’"  That's National Review's Jim Geraghty, and perhaps he hasn't spent much time recently on The Tragic Vision and the Law of Unintended Consequences and all the other reasons to be skeptical of men of system.  On the good side, he notes, "The upshot is that the information coming from the best virologists and epidemiologists in the world is cautious, tentative, and full of caveats, notes of caution, and remaining uncertainties."  Precisely.  His conclusion, though, concedes too much to the Wise Experts.  "It would be a better world if everyone turned to trusted scientists and data to find answers about problems like this. But the public is impatient to know more. With about 75,000 new cases and about 7,000 deaths each day worldwide, it is hard to begrudge the public’s impatience."

Perhaps the public is not so much impatient as it is responding, as best as its members are capable, to the information they have.