I'd like to address the “armchair epidemiologist” accusation that I've seen (not necessarily targeted at me) a number of times, e.g., in the fairly snarky thread (about which I may have more to say later). •1/25
So yes, this last couple of months, I, along with a lot of other people, have been learning epidemiology in a very unorthodox way, not taking the time to start with a basic textbook and building gradually the way toward research-level material: … •2/25
… instead, we've been scrambling to learn as much as we can at an incredibly fast rate, and obviously, in this process, we've missed a lot of important stuff (phenomena, references, credit due to whomever, etc.), and inevitably rediscovered a lot that was already known. •3/25
But is it our fault that we have to go through this at a frantic pace? Some people have had decades to learn the stuff, we barely got two months' notice! And two months in emotionally very stressful circumstances, too. Between panic and depression in my case. •4/25
We also didn't have the benefit of colleagues with whom to discuss our questions (the experts being generally too busy), often a very limited access to academic resources, and a limited amount of time available even within the narrow span. •5/25
(And not only that, but epidemiology is not necessarily our cup of tea. I would have much preferred to remain ignorant of it all. But, you know, I didn't exactly choose to get caught in the middle of a pandemic.) •6/25
So I don't feel particularly stupid for having rediscovered a lot of stuff that was already known to experts: on the contrary, rediscovery is a major part of understanding any scientific discipline (and of ascertaining that understanding). •7/25
So professional epidemiologists, who had their entire career to learn about the stuff, now making fun of those of us who are desperately trying to make sense of the world we sadly find ourselves plunged into, are being grossly unfair. •8/25
I feel it's a bit like a real-estate magnate walking through a shanty down and laughing at people who built their houses out of mud or mocking them for failing to abide by the rules of classical architecture. •9/25
IF YOU THINK THE ARMCHAIR OF ARMCHAIR EPIDEMIOLOGY IS COMFORTABLE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT IN IT. •10/25
(Some people have asked me how I react to armchair mathematicians. Well, first, I honestly try to answer their questions and guide them forward when they rediscover stuff, and I think I have plenty of evidence on my blog or on Twitter to support that claim. … •11/25
… But also, I don't think there's quite the sense of urgency about learning mathematics as there is to learning epidemiology when suddenly the most important issue in the world is a pandemic that's threatening our entire civilization.) •12/25
Anyway, what's the alternative? To just close our eyes and remain ignorant? To stop asking questions? To shut up and stare into the void? Is this really something that we want to encourage? •13/25
Methinks the problem in such a crisis is not with people who question what they're told. It's from people who DON'T question it enough. Or who don't understand and don't even try to. •14/25
Nobody can be content with an answer like “let the specialists do their work and trust them”: the whole idea of science is that it should be done in the open and under public scrutiny. •15/25
I get that specialists can't waste their time answering every question from every random idiot on the Internet. But here I'm getting some conflicting vibes as to whether some of the points I raised were idiotic: … •16/25
… you can't simultaneously play the card of “of course we knew about it! my whole career has been around this problem!” and “the question is idiotic! you shouldn't ask that!” — you can't have it both ways. •17/25
But it's even worse when the field has taken a political turn. (Also, it's hard to blindly trust people who don't even always agree with each other and whose predictions so far haven't all exactly shone.) •18/25
I believe it is apt to compare epidemiology with economics: in how much and how realistically it can model things, and how it tends to fall on the limitations of predicting human behavior; but with the major difference that it has so far been much less exposed, … •19/25
… Meaning that society has learned (to some degree!) to what extent it should trust economists, and economists, in turn, have learned their impact on society and the limits of their field. But epidemiologists are discovering that exposure isn't always enviable. •20/25
So society and epidemiologists have to learn how to speak with one another. And perhaps epidemiologists should query economists about how they manage it, and how they balance their science with their political views, when working in a politically loaded domain. •21/25
When we (the general public) hear an economist tell us that taxes should be raised, or that they should be cut, or that wages should be raised, or cut, or that interest rates should be raised, or cut, we don't automatically defer to their expertise: … •22/25
… we first ask ourselves, “wait, what is the possible political bias behind this? what do other economists say about it? what does my own knowledge of economics suggest that this might mean politically?”, and so on. This doesn't mean we disregard science. •23/25
Well, like it or not, epidemiology has moved deep into the political arena, and while it might be acceptable for specialists of some scientific fields (cosmology? philology?) to dismiss public questioning, no longer so when the public's lives are directly affected. •24/25
So, even though I DO NOT like it, I will continue to play the “armchair epidemiologist”. Understand that I don't have a choice in this: I need to understand the world around me, and the pandemic is, presently, a HUGE part of this. •25/25
