I agree (I think). Personally I believe the two are related. Epidemiology must inform the policy. And similarly we can only understand epidemiology if we understand the basic building blocks of immunity.
That, in fact, is why I have an initial section that's just about these deceptively simple concepts that we all need to understand. I wish our leaders had actually metaphorically sat the American people down and explained the basics. The average person really does not know what a virus is, or how diseases are transmitted.
So, I actually entirely agree with the position that this is something that relates to epidemiology. Where I differ is that I don't believe in gatekeeping, I think if someone has taken the effort to synthesize research into a policy proposal, however poorly, it seems at least worth debating the ideas on their merits. The experts who know more than me (and they do, at least some of them) should be able to convince a rational/reasonable person that their position is the correct one without resorting to credential-waving.
--
BTW I do read quite a lot of research papers, but I don't naturally have much interest in epidemiology. Just to give you an idea, I usually end up reading papers about stuff like: moist wound healing, and the role of red light therapy in fibroblast differentiation, and more broadly the role of electromagnetism in wound healing and neuronal galvanotropism. Weird stuff like that that's connected by invisible threads.
So, why did I read a bunch of epidemiology/COVID-related research papers? Well, the state of discourse here in the US, and also globally, has hit such a level of insanity that I decided that I needed to figure out what the facts were. (I'm not saying I have "figured out the facts" perfectly, or even at all, just that I am trying to) Honestly, it might sound ridiculous, but the turning point for me was reading that Venice Skate park was filled in with sand to prevent people from skating there. That is what informed my intuition that we are collectively being driven by superstition, and therefore what motivated me to read a bunch of research papers and reach my own conclusion about what's going on.
My ultimate conclusion? Well, the writeup is pretty clear on that one.
I disagree. Epidemiology is a science that generates facts and modelling with various degrees of accuracy. What you do with the science is in the realm of public policy and politics
I don't pretend to bear credentials. I submitted a writeup asking for feedback from those who might disagree with my conclusions; i.e. people like you. I am encouraging you to poke holes in what I've written, and I can tell you straight up that there are holes.
So...do you have any feedback about the content here?
I have yet to find a directionally-lockdown-lessening argument from an epidemiologist. Are you aware of any? This and David Katz are the closest things I've read.
It seems to me these are big questions that necessitate a healthy debate considering all the pros and cons of lockdown measures. There's a lot of moving parts and dimensions: time, which activities should be resumed or kept closed, who should observe what protective measures, travel restrictions, etc. We need people, experts from various fields AND layfolk, to have a real dialog about them. "Lockdown until vaccine unless proven otherwise" is simply not going to work.
Perhaps I haven't found these kind of voices because there is not actually a decent argument to be made. Maybe I've just missed them. Maybe epidemiologists aren't, by and large, disposed to think about economic impact, long term health implications of living in lockdown, or other second order effects. Or quite likely they are scared shitless to make anything resembling a pro-opening argument because their field is ridden with groupthink orthodoxy at the moment. Much like we see from whichever (IMO) bad actors were flagging this post.
The imperial college recommended interminnent lockdowns - lock, release, lock, release and so on depending on how you keep it under control. Does that count?
Germany is having this discussion and Czech republic too. In both cases, epidemiologist recommend slight release of rules (not a big one, but still lowering lockdown).