Scientists played a crucial role in the pandemic. We were told to “listen to scientists” and “follow the science”. Politicians and policymakers consulted with expert advisors and claimed to simply be doing what the science supported. The problem is: experts often disagree. In Sweden this was particularly clear, since our pandemic policies were so different to our European neighbours. Expert disagreement raises a difficult question: how can we follow the science, if scientists disagree? These disagreements are natural: the pandemic was new and the science was evolving rapidly. But it also made things difficult for both the public and policymakers. In this talk, I explore the question of how experts should respond to these disagreements. I postulate a difference in how this response should go in the case of disagreements in the world of research, and disagreements when advising policymaking during a crisis.