> Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science".
This feels like a straw man to me.
First, let's be very clear: There is absolutely a cohort of people out there who are objectively denying the scientific reality of covid. Those denials ranges from the absurd (e.g. covid doesn't exist, it's a conspiracy, it's going away), to the distorted (e.g. covid is no worse than the flu), to the simply wrong (e.g. masks don't protect you, they actually make you sick).
I think the refrain "we listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19" is short hand for distinguishing oneself from folks in the groups above.
Let's also be clear that statistics and modelling are scientific methods. I'm frankly a little baffled that you've attempted to draw a line between these two things. Science can absolutely help you assess questions like "How long should we quarantine to minimize health impact, and maximize economic recovery?" Will the answers be probabilistic? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't make them any less scientific, and to suggest they are suggests its own form of "scientific illiteracy".
Further, "the science" is very clear: lockdowns are effective, masks help, social distancing helps, contact tracing helps, and so on. "The science" is also clear that none of these are quick fixes or panaceas. They're all part of a web of interventions that each provide some small measure of protection that, taken together, can help keep the pandemic under control. This is the "Swiss cheese" metaphor in action.
Science can also be used to assess the effectiveness of these methods versus their tradeoffs by, again, employing statistical approaches. Are those methods foolproof? No. But they're far from guesswork. I'd argue it's this basic misunderstanding that leads people to, for example, dismiss climate modelling...
Now, ultimately, the decision as to what to do is a political one, not because statistical models and methods are flawed or inaccurate, but rather because there's always going to be a range of trade-offs, and the trade-offs we make are ultimately a political decision.
But the least we can do is expect our politicians--not to mention the people around us--to assess those trade-offs based on rigorous facts and statistical methods. That's what "listening to science" means.