RESUMEN
The Covid-19 pandemic has engendered intense public debate about the nature and place of a "science-driven" approach to decision making in such contexts, with contributions by a range of scientific authors critical of actual policy decisions. In a recent article in this journal, Greenhalgh and Engebretsen (TGEE) propose that science-driven policymaking should be abandoned in favour of a "Pragmatist turn". We critically analyze their portrayal of Pragmatism and demonstrate that their characterization is historically inaccurate, particularly focusing on the neglect of its strong commitment to scientific method and related evidential requirements. We conclude that Pragmatism's caution and respect for standards of evidence are a valuable corrective to the pandemics of fear and action that bias responses to any pandemic infection.