> People saying that didn't mean it as "obey the science," they meant, "follow the science to the conclusions it leads you to."

People saying that absolutely meant "obey the science" to the point that a substantial number of them [4] wanted to incarcerate and deprive of their livelihood anyone that didn't obey their idea of science.

- https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/violating-coronavirus-...

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/06/...

- https://oaklandpostonline.com/31966/features/my-familys-smal...

[4] https://www.statista.com/chart/23458/support-for-future-lock...

You're making an enormous leap from "follow the science" to health policy and then again to legal consequences of violating local laws.

No one said, "'The Science' told us to arrest people for going to church!" The science did (and does) say that a huge amount of the spread of Covid was due to church attendance (and gyms, concerts, and clubs) at the time, particularly because of rapid singing/breathing and close quarters in those settings.

What people decide to do with that isn't scientific. It's local policy.

When you have a system where people are legally entitled to free health care (as they are in emergencies in the US), then the government should have a right to tell them to cut out unnecessary activities in an extreme crisis that had depleted local medical resources. It's just as easy to hold religious services on Zoom.

I would have preferred that when people were caught violating these laws, they were allowed to continue, but only if they signed a document forfeiting their right to emergency medical care.