It's not because I agree with that libertarian sort of position, but rather because I think there needs to be a genuine political debate informed by the science, not a scientific debate in a political arena.
Also, it means one side can claim to be "pro-science" and advocate for particular policies under that banner, while portraying other policies as "anti-science," even though the disagreement is (or ought to be) a political one.
Same thing happens with climate change.
To be fair, Orac does acknowledge the possibility as part of a comment: "I suppose it’s theoretically possible to be provaccine but antimandate, but I’m struggling to recall the last time that I’ve encountered one." Which is basically the same as how I feel.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.