“Funny” story: when doctors learned washing their hands reduced infections, they actually *did* give up washing their hands after the guy figured it out left. And then more people died.
And even today, hospitals spend BIG money reminding & convincing doctors to wash their hands.
It’s Saturday, so let’s get controversial about public health & medicine.
Grab a coffee, a tea, a snack, your choice. Then read this short thread, & weigh in with your comments!
Today’s topic: how do we choose public health policies?
When evaluating & deciding between public health intervention or policy choices, it’s never simply a matter of “do they work?” or even “which works better?”.
Instead, decision-makers generally want to know “are they worth it?” and “which one is ^more^ ‘worth it’?”
At it’s core, this comes from the feeling that we should only be putting policies in place if they are on balance more good than bad.
That’s a reasonable goal. But, even though this question seems simple, it’s ridiculously hard to answer!
Last week, I tweeted that epidemiology is the science of public health.
But what *is* epidemiology?
A thread🧵
First, a caveat for other public health practitioners & epidemiologists: this thread is not meant to 100% characterize all of epi or all of public health.
I couldn’t do that even in a whole book.
Many public health professionals do science, not just epidemiologists.
Science in public health is also not only epidemiology. It also includes biology, virology, ecology, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc.
Public health professionals are probably working with just about every field imaginable.
The thing about “evidence-based” medicine or parenting or nutrition or whatever is that people who hype this approach never seem to care to much about how that “evidence” is obtained and whether it can actually inform any of the choices they want to make.
The simple fact is that for almost every problem we are still trying to solve, the “evidence” about what to actually *do* to solve that problem is precisely the thing we are missing.
Often all we really know is what the problem looks like, from a whole bunch of different angles. Because *that* is much easier to learn.