In general or specifically relating to public health 'crises':
What is the ethical, or legal/political concept, term or anecdote (even slang - I am sure there is not precedent, law etc.) that #may# be used to describe: "a process of regulatory legislation which proceeds without valid, supporting evidence of public health benefit" on which to base the legislation?
Background: Specifically relating to evidence-based, public-health research that could drive legislation, the cost benefit of firearms legislation relative to death rate remains unclear as the CDC group studying firearms related deaths in the 1990s was shuttered. With the lack of available data that is free of confounds, recent public health/epidemiology literature has been unable to conclude quantitatively that a causal relationship between firearm legislation and firearms related death.
Reference case: In contrast, the 1960s public health emergency would have been the huge number of traffic/automobile deaths. The government created a task force to research the issue from an evidence-based public health standpoint, determined an airbag device would reduce the number of fatalities by a significant number (statistically) - and drove the legislative battle to require automakers to implement them - which worked.