Whether gov't should take action is a judgement call. If the gov't had done nothing, millions of Americans would have been clamoring for gov't action. I'm not taking sides on that.

Calling the policies "not rooted in science" is a stretch. Let's take social distancing. Science tells us that if I don't come in contact with the moisture laden breath of an infected person, then it is far more likely than not that I won't become infected. Social distancing almost always works then. What is at issue is the distance. 6' is arbitrary and didn't help much. One could conclude that 6' was capricious. But most scientists didn't know that until after the fact when there was data to indicate as much. So what should people have done? Oh, maybe shoot any republican who comes within 30 or 40' of me and call it self defense. That would sure go over well in this society that no longer believes in the rule of law. Or would you choose the "do nothing" option?

What about the vaccine? It's not 100% effective! Well no sh!t Sherlock; most things aren't 100% effective. But if it's 75% effective or higher, it leads to herd immunity faster and with fewer losses than doing nothing. Oh, and your exalted Orange Leader got the vax, and initiated operation Warp Speed to develop it. Same with masks, not 100% effective, but higher than zero. And how they are worn contributes much to their effectiveness. That's what I meant about American stupidity. It's gotta' be 100% effective, or it's 0%; nothing in between. You tell me, are Americans really this stupid?

You're right that doctors and scientists were guessing at times. When there's a lack of data to work with, educated guesses are the best that science can offer because science is evidence driven. But stupid Americans are unable to comprehend nuance and understand that when there is a lack of information, the best one can do is compare and contrast any similar conditions that could be applicable. Or you could do nothing and watch more people get sick and die.

With the benefit of hindsight it's now easy to see that some things should have been done differently. But that's hindsight. Foresight was a game of educated guessing to "promote the general welfare" of the nation. That's a big tent, and I don't think a "do nothing" approach is a very good fit.

My opinions are generally informed by science; that's basically how I manage my entire life. When science evolves and changes, my opinions also change. Now you're not wrong about "Orange man bad," because, upon reasonable examination of that POS, I've not managed to find any redeeming quality in him, which is why I'm so flabbergasted that so many gullible Americans fall for his cult leadership. On his best day, the guy really is a sh!tstain, so you'll excuse my harsh summation of him.

I do not have blind faith in anything. If you knew me at all you would conclude that I am very much a person of evidence faith. My faith in government is supported by the fact that a constitutional republic (see, I get it) based on democratic principles of pluralism, free expression and commerce yields a better functioning society for the masses than does anarchy or totalitarianism, or oligarchy. The evidence supporting my faith is to take a look at how well off people are in western democracies compared to how well off they are in the dictatorships. Seems pretty clear, cogent, and convincing to me. Am I wrong? If so, please detail how.