I think the point in
@JohnEGreen referenced article is the reason the word epidemic can be used is because there are life and societal factors that cause the disease which most are exposed to and thus give the disease the ability to spread through society in that way. Ie it is communicable by that shared societal behaviour, belief and opportunity rather than infectious bacteria or virus etc as we tend to think of communicable diseases. And if something can be communicated then it can become an epidemic.
For sure society is a factor (along with genetics and individual life styles and choices and options) in terms of the diet available, the diet advocated as healthy, the norms and aspirations experienced and encouraged, the way exercise is viewed and experienced and the accurate education of risk and prevention. Focusing all efforts on personal responsibility to “be healthy” and blaming a person when the then “fail” by getting diabetes is never going to be the cure either. Understanding the true causes and addressing the lifestyle factors on a societal level is certainly required too. Does that make it communicable? I’d have said no outright before reading the article based on a contagion conception of what communicable means . I’m rethinking on it for now not so sure anymore. Can we “catch” bad lifestyles and diets which increase our odds of becoming type 2 diabetic through no fault of our own? Maybe.
I do however think typically the word Epidemic, when used for conditions like diabetes, is used to emphasise the scale of a problem in a common language rather than a scientific one. We use plenty of words in a similarly scientifically inaccurate way without writing papers on it.
Sorry it’s late and I’m waffling as much as the article did