Nope. Sorry. Democrats are not the party of science...

Liberals don't like "science". They like statistical modeling that tells them what they want to hear and then they call it "science". 

Take a close look at the arguments surrounding global warming. How often is there a "real" disagreement regarding the scientific concept that fossil fuels and other pollutants have a negative affect on the atmosphere, or cause damage to the ozone layer? How often to people actually get into the technical aspects of whether or not a "greenhouse effect" actually exists? The answer to both questions would be almost never.

The issues and disagreements pretty much always are in regards to statistical modeling and whether or not the climate models can or should be trusted. Make no mistake. There is a tremendously large chasm between a disagreement with the "science" of global warming and a disagreement on how much stock to take in statistical modeling. The former is a matter of actual science that can be proven (or not), the latter is little more than a guess that has turned out to be historically inaccurate to a degree that could be best described as "laughable". 

What we have seen in this whole Covid-19 crisis is more of the same. Democrats are running around exclaiming to all that will listen that Republicans in general (and Republican Governors specifically) are not listening to "science" as they make their decisions. Yet, what they are really arguing is that Republicans are not willing to be pulled around by the nose by what the most dire of statistical models are telling them. 

Make no mistake, there are more models right now than Carter has pills. We have models on case, models on deaths, hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilator usage, etc. We have some based on social distancing, some based on complete shut downs, and some based on doing nothing. We have models on the economic impacts, the unemployment rates, the GDP rates, and everything economically in between. I am pretty sure that have modeling regarding the modeling. 

The only thing that has remained constant has been the inaccuracy of these models. 

• At first they overplayed it by a few 100 percent (2.2 million Americans would die). Then they reversed course and underplayed it (60,000). Then many made adjustments to the number that in come cases doubled the final results. Some of these significant changes happened overnight.
• Modeling is what told Cuomo that he needed 40,000 ventilators (when he needed more like 4000). Modeling is what told Americans that we were going to be short tens of thousands of hospital beds (we are running at 35% of normal capacity). Modeling told our Governor that 70,000 Minnesotans would die (regardless of what we did). 
• Modeling told us that Florida, Texas, South Dakota that didn't shut down (or shut down early enough) would suffer massively for their lack of action. They haven't.  
• Economic modeling told us that countries and states that didn't shut down would not reap much reward. Those models have turned out to be horribly wrong based on all empirical evidence to date. In Scandinavia for instance, Denmark and Norway has seen gross spending drop by 70% while Sweden's drop has been around 30%. Minnesota (which is locked down tight) has a current unemployment rate (15) that is two and a half times higher than South Dakota (6%) that remains mostly open.

There once was a time that if you heard the term statistical modeling and Harvard in the same breath it would have some bearing of respect and authority that came with it. Today it provides little more than another "eye roll". The more "academic" the model, the more likely it is to have a horrible political taint and almost no semblance to reality. 

The truth is that if Democrats "really" wanted to listen to science, then they would put aside their infatuation with statistical modeling and spend more time evaluating the gross amounts of empirical data that is currently available on pretty much every subject. This could be looking at the existing historical data on global warming (without changing it), rather than insist that computer guesses can be deemed to be empirical data. Or this could be looking at the raw numbers that currently exist on Covid-19 that is being tracked in a variety of locations, rather than searching out whatever "model" they are looking for that will tell them what they want to believe. 

As a cynic, a political skeptic, and a guy with a reasonable understanding of how modeling works, they are little more than a reflection of whatever assumption if being made. If you believe that the greenhouse effect will raise temperatures 10 degrees a year, then it's simple and easy to concoct a model that will show that. If you believe that not locking down your entire state will lead to catastrophic results, then you can create a model that will reinforce that belief. 

But that model is only the result of the underlying theory. As that theory changes, so does the model. There is no such thing as some generic model that exists outside of assumptions and beliefs that will tell us the future from any sort objective manner. The entire concept of modeling is 100% subjective. Which is why it's not "real" science in any sense of the word.