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.

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

You are trying to mince words there.

Can you please explain how it is possible to "obey the science" (which these people called for) from a purely political "health policy" perspective but from not "legal consequences" perspective?

What are the "health policy" policies that are to be implemented to "obey the science" (as they were asking for), that don't demand any "legal consequences"?

P.S.: Also, your suggestion of denying aid to these people is just totalitarian, actually. Let's do the same about obese people, then: that would cut health spending by more than half for everyone else.