If static type systems cannot do everything, it does not make sense to me to conclude that they shouldn't then be used for anything. Type systems aren't part of "regular testing", they're part of compile-time error checking.
I was trying to note that Clojure, as a dynamic language, is making a (to my eyes) very interesting choice, of doubling down on these dynamic methods of verification. For some uses, I can see this as the better choice, for others it isn't and won't be.
In my own work, I chose Clojure because it mirrored my experiences: that type systems weren't worth the trade-offs for me and my field.
Would I prefer stronger typing in different domains (longer project times available, greater consequences of failure like medical devices, etc.)? Sure, and I have in the past. But it's not the case that dynamic languages are always the incorrect choice, like smoking cigarettes.