> But my question is: if epidemiologists aren't experts at THIS, wtf are they experts in? Isn't this exactly the "classic" circumstance any average epidemiologist should be a able to see in a heartbeat.
They're experts at remaining epidemiologists. Epidemiology is a lose-lose profession. If you overreact, then you get blamed. If you underreact, then you get blamed. Every epidemiologist who was willing to put their predictions in clear, unambiguous language and put their reputations on the line to urge decisive action was drummed out when MERS didn't turn out to be a big deal or Ebola didn't turn out to be a big deal or when H1N1 didn't turn out to be a big deal or when SARS didn't turn out to be a big deal.
Thus, what remains are people putting their predictions in mush mouthed, carefully qualified scientific language that is all technically correct but carefully calibrated not to encourage anyone to do anything.
First time entrants have an advantage in the field in that they don't care if they get drummed out.
They're experts at remaining epidemiologists. Epidemiology is a lose-lose profession. If you overreact, then you get blamed. If you underreact, then you get blamed. Every epidemiologist who was willing to put their predictions in clear, unambiguous language and put their reputations on the line to urge decisive action was drummed out when MERS didn't turn out to be a big deal or Ebola didn't turn out to be a big deal or when H1N1 didn't turn out to be a big deal or when SARS didn't turn out to be a big deal.
Thus, what remains are people putting their predictions in mush mouthed, carefully qualified scientific language that is all technically correct but carefully calibrated not to encourage anyone to do anything.
First time entrants have an advantage in the field in that they don't care if they get drummed out.