All government funded scientists, whether through salary, contract, or grant, have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing science to support government policies. The strong bias is toward supporting those policies and avoiding any challenge to those policies.
It is conceivable that our faith in science over observations could return the human condition to where it was at after the fall of the bronze age, only the mysterious monuments would need to be explained by even bigger giants. The risk of this happening is significant even if it is unlikely.
This vaccine will become the largest human experiment in history. Unlike science we were taught in school, this experiment has no control group, and the experiment will involve every living human in the country. If it succeeds fantastically, we will avoid the loss of a few hundred thousand frail elderly people over the course of a few years. If it fails, we may wipe out our civilization.
The dark data observations are actually assertions that the present world obeys the expectations for how the world operates according to very small number of people’s (often just one) understanding. This presents the opportunity for those same individuals to force the simulated world to the way that best conforms to their wishes. No one else will know whether the tests are for actual science or for some agenda.
I believe our ancestors approach science-guidance very differently. I believe this came from there being a culture that encouraged everyone to participate in the practice of science and collect of new evidence that undermines old science. This older culture is similar to the automated government of data and urgency. The automated approach emphasizes data representing recent observations from reliable sensors of objects that are not biased by rules based on preconceptions.
The science for how to deal with COVID19 is clear, and it clearly goes against all common sense. This may be a time when the best response to scientific recommendation is to dismiss it as ridiculous.
The biggest failing of science in the current COVID situation is its inability to react to new evidence that its original conclusions were wrongly decided, and the assurances to governments were incompetent. We implicitly accept that any initial science-based decisions attains some law-like status that is automatically presumed to be true until there is overwhelming evidence that it is wrong. In particular, such decision making does not permit a simple apology for making a mistake following new data that clearly disproves the original science.
We live an era of rapid succession of new challenges and opportunities as humanity continues to progress to a more capable population. There is no time to waste on clinging to old theories merely out of respect to the past science. We need a government that reinvigorates the true science of the activity of figuring out new truths of the current world based on recent measurements that our predecessors never encountered.
Perhaps the real agent behind this pandemic is science itself. Given a sufficiently dire circumstance, science can shut down our natural defenses of critically thinking about observations we can clearly see. Science tells us that if this is the disease it warned us would come, then we have no choice but place all trust on science at the expense of paying attention to what we are seeing.
We should study observations separately from derivations from theories. The deliberately ignorant takes the position that data is superior to science. There is a valid place for the deliberately ignorant when included in teams with domain experts representing each of the relevant scientific disciplines. In order to work, the deliberately ignorant needs to be skilled at his craft of being ignorant in the right way to propel the team towards a new solution without annoying everyone to the point of being expelled.