In this in-depth conversation, Dr. Klaus Schustereder speaks with Prof. Michael Esfeld, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Lausanne, about what really happened during the Covid years — not from a medical angle, but from the perspective of philosophy, science and the rule of law. Esfeld explains why, in his view, it is precisely the task of a philosopher of science to scrutinise claims of “follow the science” and to ask whether the measures taken were grounded in solid evidence or in mere pretensions of knowledge.

The discussion moves through key themes of the pandemic years: the heavy reliance on computer models, the neglect of real-world evidence, the psychological need for certainty, and the role of fear in politics and media. Esfeld argues that the Covid response was driven more by pessimistic scenarios and scientism — the elevation of science into a kind of secular religion — than by careful, evidence-based judgment. He contrasts this with traditional standards in science and medicine, where proportionality, critical debate and informed consent are supposed to be central.

Throughout the interview, the link between modern science and constitutional democracy is a recurring thread. Esfeld warns that when science is used to justify suspending the rule of law, silencing dissent and concentrating power, both science and democracy are put at risk. The views expressed here are critical and controversial; they reflect Esfeld’s philosophical assessment of the last three years and are offered as a contribution to an ongoing public debate, not as medical advice.