Currently accepted views on contagion are based on the concept of Transmission Chains (aka Chains of Infection) [1] and are usually described by very simplified and reductionist Compartmental Models in Epidemiology [2] such as the SIR model (Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered); which are characterized by the Basic Reproduction Number (R_0).
In other words, epidemiology is built on a very shaky foundation defined by simple models that cannot possibly account for the extreme variability, infinite degrees of freedom, and countless unknowns present in the natural world. Hence epidemiologists cannot protect us or save us from anything. It's as if the whole field was formed to prevent us from falling off the edge of the earth.
"One of the earliest instances of modern epidemiology can be found during an 1854 cholera outbreak in London(link is external and opens in a new window). Doctors believed the widespread illness must have been airborne, but Dr. John Snow, widely considered to be the father of epidemiology, employed a different kind of thinking. By carefully mapping the outbreak and analyzing those who were infected, Snow was able to link every cholera case to a single water pump at the intersection of Broad and Cambridge Streets (now Lexington Street) in London’s Soho neighborhood. The removal of the pump stopped the disease in its tracks—laying the basis of today’s epidemiological practices."
I agree it can clearly be useful when dealing with “macro” pathogens distributed in limited ranges as in your example (in this case from a true point source). Respiratory and other viral illnesses, the supposed cause of “pandemics”, not so much.
In other words, epidemiology is built on a very shaky foundation defined by simple models that cannot possibly account for the extreme variability, infinite degrees of freedom, and countless unknowns present in the natural world. Hence epidemiologists cannot protect us or save us from anything. It's as if the whole field was formed to prevent us from falling off the edge of the earth.
I mostly agree, however in some instances epidemiology is (or was) actually very helpful. Example (source https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/what-epidemiology):
"One of the earliest instances of modern epidemiology can be found during an 1854 cholera outbreak in London(link is external and opens in a new window). Doctors believed the widespread illness must have been airborne, but Dr. John Snow, widely considered to be the father of epidemiology, employed a different kind of thinking. By carefully mapping the outbreak and analyzing those who were infected, Snow was able to link every cholera case to a single water pump at the intersection of Broad and Cambridge Streets (now Lexington Street) in London’s Soho neighborhood. The removal of the pump stopped the disease in its tracks—laying the basis of today’s epidemiological practices."
I agree it can clearly be useful when dealing with “macro” pathogens distributed in limited ranges as in your example (in this case from a true point source). Respiratory and other viral illnesses, the supposed cause of “pandemics”, not so much.