It's one thing to be an expert in a field, and it's quite another to be able to predict what will happen. The ability to predict what will happen in a dynamic system implies that you have a deep understanding. Physicists have a deep understanding of planetary motion and are able to accurately predict orbits. Chemists understand many chemical reactions and, based on initial conditions, can accurately predict the outcome of reactions. Epidemiologists, on the other hand, are more like well-trained investors. They know a lot about viruses. They are knowledgeable as to how many viruses have progressed historically. Yet they still struggle to accurately predict how an individual virus will behave in the population over time. They are better at predicting than the average person, but they get it wrong, regularly. Just as stocks have their own unique characteristics, so do viruses. Both are also affected by the ever-changing environment. The list of variables is long. It's a complex, dynamic system and it appears to me that many epidemiologists that speak publically are too self-assured and not humble enough about what they don't understand. What I find most annoying though is that, after the fact, we get correlations. Now, it's housing density and/or variants. Coincidentally, all these after-the-fact correlations support their initial contention that wasn't supported by the outcome.