I do genetic epidemiology (which is considerably more compute intensive than regular epidemiology), and R is still the most common language, with the most libraries and packages being used for it, compared to python for example.
I think maybe you should consider being less forthcoming with your opinions on topics which you are not well informed on.
By contrast, from first downloading R to running my first R script took about 1 hour (the most difficult part was opening the 'script' pane in RStudio IDE, which doesn't open by default on new installations, for some reason).
There's huge demand out there for statistical software that's accessible to people whose primary pursuit is not programming/cs, but genetics, bioinformatics, economics, ecology and other disciplines that necessitate tooling much more powerful than excel, but with barriers to entry not much greater than excel. R is a fairly amazing fit for those folks.
Try installing an older version of a package without it pulling in the most recent incompatible dependencies, it's a whole adventure.
R sucks as a language but it excels at that specific application, just because of its tremendous ecosystem (putting even python to shame in some niche areas).
Not all non-typed languages are bad. Clojure, for example, is one if the most elegant languages I’ve worked with (despite my dislike of the JVM).
On the other hand, R has too many obscure options for what I can find in scipy or sklearn. So I find it easier to just jump into sklearn, use the very nice unified interface "pipelines" to churn through a whole bunch of different estimators without having to do any munging on my data.
So I think it just depends on your field. But R seems to stick more with academia.