I think it’s even a little worse than that. A bunch of the people saying “trust the science” actually meant “trust a particular policy.” Science is not policy, and policy is not science.
Oh yeah, it's been an ongoing problem for years. The name of science has been used to lend credence to all sorts of unscientific nonsense, usually by slapping some citations onto it and calling it facts-based or science-based.
We began developing modern germ theory in the mid-19th century. We've gotten really good at retarding the transmission of infectious disease. We know what works.
Just like we've known for well over 100 years that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
To your point, science is not policy - but policy that is not informed by science is just wishful thinking.
Let’s pretend for a second that we absolutely, unequivocally, know and knew what would prevent transmission of COVID-19 [0]. It still does not follow that anyone in the government saying “stay home” or “no non-essential travel” or “wear a mask indoors” is science. It’s policy. It may or may not be well informed by science and it may or may not be a good idea. Science might be able to determine how disease spreads, but deciding what to do with that information is outside the scope is most science.
[0] At least judging by what various branches of the government said and still say, this requires a lot of suspension of disbelief.
It's then on the public policymakers to inform the public how the policy was driven by science so that the public understands why the policy is being adopted.
