Science, Fear and the “Corona Regime”: Prof. Michael Esfeld on Models, Scientism and the Rule of Law

On 2 February 2023, Dr. Klaus Schustereder sat down with Prof. Michael Esfeld, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, to reflect on three turbulent years of Covid politics and public discourse. Esfeld has written several books on science, freedom and the Covid response, including a German-language work on freedom during the pandemic and a forthcoming book titled Science and the Rule of Law under Attack. In this interview he explains why, as a philosopher of science, he felt compelled to analyse the “Corona regime”.
From the outset, Esfeld insists that the core job of a philosopher of science is to examine claims of knowledge, regardless of their source. When governments claimed to be “following the science”, he asked whether those claims actually stood up to scrutiny. Looking at statistical data, comparative country cases and the structure of epidemiological models, he argues that there was no evidence of an extraordinary emergency that would justify suspending fundamental rights and the usual standards of scientific and legal reasoning. In his view, what we saw was not evidence-based medicine, but politics driven by worst-case models.
A central part of the conversation deals with computer modelling. Esfeld contrasts models that explore possible scenarios with the way some models were used as if they were precise predictions of reality. He points out how crucial human adaptation and behavioural change are in any epidemic, and how difficult they are to model. Yet, many influential models treated people almost like passive particles, ignored behavioural feedback, and worked with pessimistic assumptions about infection fatality rates. According to Esfeld, this created catastrophic predictions that strongly shaped policy, while real-world evidence pointed in a more moderate direction.
Dr. Schustereder also asks about the role of the media and politics. Esfeld describes a feedback loop in which negative headlines, political pressure and the demand for certainty reinforced each other. Politicians, fearful of being blamed for deaths, tended to choose visible action over proportionate restraint. The media, for their part, focused on daily case numbers and dramatic narratives rather than on sober indicators such as excess mortality. Esfeld sees this pattern as part of a broader human tendency: pessimistic predictions attract more attention, and fear can become a powerful business model.
One of Esfeld’s key themes is the deep historical link between modern science and constitutional democracy. Both emerged, he notes, after the religious wars in Europe, as attempts to limit power through reason. In science, arguments and evidence should matter more than authority; in a constitutional state, the rule of law and separation of powers are meant to constrain political power. Esfeld is concerned that during the Covid years, this relationship was turned upside down: science was invoked as unquestionable authority, critical debate was discouraged, and emergency measures temporarily displaced the rule of law.
This leads to his critique of scientism — the idea that science can not only describe facts, but also directly dictate norms and tell people how they must live. Slogans like “Follow the science”, he argues, confuse the proper role of science. Science can inform us about facts and risks, but it cannot decide what we ought to do; that requires political, ethical and legal judgment. When science is treated as a moral authority or quasi-religion, it risks losing its objectivity and, ultimately, its credibility.
The interview also touches on medicine, ethics and individual responsibility. Dr. Schustereder raises concerns about standards such as informed consent, risk explanation and the use of PCR testing. Esfeld, drawing analogies with financial markets, emphasises that professionals who apply interventions — whether financial products or medical treatments — bear responsibility for explaining risks and obtaining meaningful consent. He stresses that individual actors, including doctors and administrators, cannot simply hide behind orders from above; they retain their own moral and legal responsibility in concrete situations.
Finally, the conversation looks toward the future. Esfeld does not claim that dangerous viruses or major crises are impossible. Rather, he argues that we must strengthen the institutional safeguards that prevent concentrations of power and protect open debate. He suggests that public health law should be carefully revised so that it cannot easily be used to override basic rights, and that science must reclaim its role as a provider of objective information, not as a tool for enforcing conformity.
This interview offers a philosophical and political reading of the Covid years that many will find challenging. It is intended as a starting point for reflection on science, fear, freedom and the rule of law in modern societies. The statements in this video express the views and interpretations of Prof. Esfeld and do not constitute medical advice or a consensus scientific position.