| Comment | Incidentally, as an aside I'm an epidemiologist (non-communicable), and I find it funny folk tipping their toe in it.
People see a bit of suggestive data on COVID-19 and have strong opinions, but show them something like red meat intake and colorectal cancer, which is *pretty solid* and it's '...No, frankly'.
It's basically the study of biases, really: no data in the land is perfect and a true representation of reality. Estimates of effect size can be fuzzy, or totally conditional on third (moderator) variables which you might not have, or even considered. Booze is quite a good example where it's *obviously* not good for you, and any positive effect is probably bias (namely 'sick quitters' where the ill have dropped out, or list their intake as zero, or it's health social folk who have a bit, frequently).
It's also usually quite slow and rarely reliant on single papers to guide decisions. The idea of a solution in the short-term is pretty crackers.
Anyway: just my observation, having worked in it for years. Folk sometimes run away with it a bit. |
|---|