One thing about experts is that they’ve usually made it through the Dunning-Kruger “confidence pit” and come out the other side. They’re often cautious about ma

One thing about experts is that they’ve usually made it through the Dunning-Kruger “confidence pit” and come out the other side. They’re often cautious about making very strident remarks, and when they are really confident in a conclusion, it’s usually because it has a very high probability of being correct. When someone new to a field comes to a contrarian conclusion, they’re often willing to show more confidence in their conclusion because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This makes it hard to take non-experts at their word, since they’re often unaware of how likely they are to be wrong. Now, if a total non-expert had come out of nowhere with an analysis that contradicted the public health establishment, definitively showed that the danger was massively overblown, and was right, that would be one thing. But this medium post was incorrect in its conclusion, quite confident in its conclusion, and advised courses of action that would put many people in danger (such as reopening schools).