Why are so many epidemiologists so vocally unhinged on complex questions, while you don't hear nearly as much cray cray from clinicians e.g. infectious disease physicians?

A thread. https://twitter.com/profmiketoole/status/1359449278595301380

One big reason (might not be a long thread).

Practicing clinically means seeing real people in real life, hearing their real stories and trying to provide real explanations and real material assistance.

This reality enforces intellectual/conceptual discipline.

It might also foster compassion and tolerance, in some clinicians. It's no coincidence that many enlightened public policies have been driven by medical practitioners and other clinicians.

But even more uniformly and reliably, clinical practice enforces intellectual discipline. Because of the real-life consequences of error.

Again, not only or even mainly the consequences to the patient/client.

The peer-group (and to a lesser extent the general social) humiliation of making a serious blunder provides more than enough disincentive to a practicing clinician, to risk any serious error, ever.

There's a reason good doctors hate giving a straight answer.

Social systems shield eminent professors from such social discomfort; Siloed disciplines, tenured positions, media and public amnesia of past clangers.

While the boundless variation across individual human bodies and minds can seem to lay cunning traps for the complacent.

I don't agree with all of @CollignonPeter's opinions, but I know why they've all been coherent, nuanced, and real-life, from this time last year.

Not all epidemiologists have allowed their higher cog function go to seed, Catherine Bennett is excellent (but not on twitter).