If you consider yourself apolitical after studying epidemiology, you've missed some of the key points and should have another look at the subject #epitwitterhttps://twitter.com/zclayborne/status/1267156066795761664 …
-
Show this thread
-
As a start, the originaly 2005 Marmot report is eye-opening "Social factors [are] at the root of much of these inequalities in health" https://www.who.int/social_determinants/strategy/en/Marmot-Social%20determinants%20of%20health%20inqualities.pdf …pic.twitter.com/6A5GdEVLLs
1 reply 7 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
The boring fact is that society is unequal and that this impacts public health. The corollary to this is that, if you want to improve health, you have to improve society There is no apolitical epidemiology
5 replies 33 retweets 108 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Everyone wants to improve society. Epidemiologists’ views about how to do that are no better than anyone else’s.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
"Better" is a moral judgement, so obviously you're right - it's inherently subjective Better informed, however, is a more reasonable point, and I think very defensible
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I’ll change it to “better informed” then, and say exactly the same thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
I'd say then that you're pretty obviously wrong - studying a subject in depth may not make your opinions "better" but it's very odd to argue that it doesn't make someone better informed
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Epidemiology is not the study of how to improve the world, and even if it were it would be so broad as to be meaningless.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
Nope, but it is the study of the health of societies and how to improve them. Whether you consider health important is, of course, a value judgement, but I think it would be terribly disingenuous to argue that most people don't
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Everybody considers health important, just as they consider money, happiness and wisdom important, but that doesn’t bless those who study business, economics or philosophy with the gift of knowing how to improve society. There are competing priorities, for a start.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There are always competing priorities, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'd agree, for example, that economists are also better informed than most in terms of societal improvement, in this context health economists perhaps most of all
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
My point is that epidemiologists have expertise in a limited field and the fact that they want to improve society (like everyone else) does not make them experts in assessing what society’s problem is, let alone in devising the solution. Marmot is a good example.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
Well, you've shifted a bit there, from "better than anyone else" to "experts" which is clearly not quite the same. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that your argument only makes sense in a context where you don't consider health/wellbeing a societal issue
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.