Saying something is “objectively false” doesn’t make it so. You actually have to, you know...provide some evidence. There is no such thing as an epidemiologist

Saying something is “objectively false” doesn’t make it so. You actually have to, you know...provide some evidence. There is no such thing as an epidemiologist. The “field“ consists of a number of diverse sub-disciplines (ranging from population molecular biology to the sociology of disease interventions) and in fact, a great many “economists” publish in epidemiology journals. The author of TFA is one of them. You can absolutely be an epidemiologist without understanding medicine, and again, there’s no such thing as “epidemiology”, to be “understood”. If you apply the tools of chemistry (or cooking, or anything else!) to the study of communicable disease, then - surprise! - you’re an epidemiologist. Some things that fall in the world of “epidemiology”, that require none of the things you’ve said: * research into the economics of treatment A vs B for HIV. * studies into communication strategies for convincing people to wear condoms. * examining the relationship between school closures and child nutrition. * investigating food preparation methods that lead to greater incidence of Hepatitis C transmission. In fact, a great many of the loudest voices in the Covid-19 debate have been from people doing this kind of work, and referring to themselves as epidemiologists. The real problem is not the categorization, but the identity of the originator of the speech, and dismissing people for not being “epidemiologists” (as the OP was doing) is just a lowbrow dismissal dressed in a labcoat. I’ve now explained why this is a fact (twice), and you counter with...a repetition that I’m wrong. Compelling rebuttal.