This post resonated with me the most so far. I think we are in a fine balance at this point in the US especially, trying to figure out what is the acceptable level of cases. If our health systems are not at risk of being overrun in a particular area than the need for very strict lockdown is not warranted given the other negative consequences of such a lockdown. However, if we think to a future pandemic, a goal of no community spread, aka Zero cases, even in the US, may be be a reasonable goal to build scenarios around. But also seems prudent to have a plan in place assuming we can’t prevent community spread because not all states will adhere to federal guidelines.
I liked your entry very much, it reinforces my beliefs and professional practice which are based on a systems view of society. That view assumes an interconnection between economic, political, social, and health subsystems of organized societies.
Unfortunately, the tendency to seek “Spherical Cow” or short-term solutions to problems or of viewing them as isolated phenomena unrelated to their underlying causes, partly explains why we only attack symptoms rather than underlying determinants: rarely confronting the so-called upstream roots.
Your honesty and courage to take on the current approach to problem solving, by asking the tough questions related to the efficacy of the prevailing paradigm in operation continue to be why I respect you and stand ready to support the work you do.
Asking these kinds of questions is very helpful in getting us closer to the truth of the matter and helping discern better ways to go forward.
The sense I get from those who don't value some of the governmental action to prevent and/or control COVID is that the cure is worse than the disease, whether to their pocketbooks, mental health, family/social cohesiveness, the list goes on.
Including average people on the ground in decision making that affects their lives is one appproach not only to consider how policies, programs, services, and systems affect them, but also to learn about potential options that might work better.
I make a somewhat similar joke when I teach research methods to sociology undergrads. I tell them that in some fields, particularly the natural sciences, the goal is to control for contextual influences by placing their object of study in a vacuum. But when studying people, we can't analyze social behavior in vacuum because, well, there is no oxygen in a vacuum and they won't survive. The follow-up point is that, to understand the social world, we need to explicitly examine the context in which people live, not control for it. The challenges of implementing partial lockdowns and mask mandates in the past year provide pretty strong evidence that achieving "No-COVID" would be a huge challenge.
This post resonated with me the most so far. I think we are in a fine balance at this point in the US especially, trying to figure out what is the acceptable level of cases. If our health systems are not at risk of being overrun in a particular area than the need for very strict lockdown is not warranted given the other negative consequences of such a lockdown. However, if we think to a future pandemic, a goal of no community spread, aka Zero cases, even in the US, may be be a reasonable goal to build scenarios around. But also seems prudent to have a plan in place assuming we can’t prevent community spread because not all states will adhere to federal guidelines.
I love this entry, thank you!
Sandro,
I liked your entry very much, it reinforces my beliefs and professional practice which are based on a systems view of society. That view assumes an interconnection between economic, political, social, and health subsystems of organized societies.
Unfortunately, the tendency to seek “Spherical Cow” or short-term solutions to problems or of viewing them as isolated phenomena unrelated to their underlying causes, partly explains why we only attack symptoms rather than underlying determinants: rarely confronting the so-called upstream roots.
Your honesty and courage to take on the current approach to problem solving, by asking the tough questions related to the efficacy of the prevailing paradigm in operation continue to be why I respect you and stand ready to support the work you do.
Warmly,
Jerry
Sent from my iPhone
Gerard Cox, PhD
Consultant:
Leadership and Organization Development,
Managing Change During Complex Times
951 Lagrange St.
Boston, MA 02132
617-739-0799
www.gerardcoxassociates.com
Asking these kinds of questions is very helpful in getting us closer to the truth of the matter and helping discern better ways to go forward.
The sense I get from those who don't value some of the governmental action to prevent and/or control COVID is that the cure is worse than the disease, whether to their pocketbooks, mental health, family/social cohesiveness, the list goes on.
Including average people on the ground in decision making that affects their lives is one appproach not only to consider how policies, programs, services, and systems affect them, but also to learn about potential options that might work better.
Terrific description as prescription for more actionable public health inspired health system reform! The time really is now! Thank yoi!
I make a somewhat similar joke when I teach research methods to sociology undergrads. I tell them that in some fields, particularly the natural sciences, the goal is to control for contextual influences by placing their object of study in a vacuum. But when studying people, we can't analyze social behavior in vacuum because, well, there is no oxygen in a vacuum and they won't survive. The follow-up point is that, to understand the social world, we need to explicitly examine the context in which people live, not control for it. The challenges of implementing partial lockdowns and mask mandates in the past year provide pretty strong evidence that achieving "No-COVID" would be a huge challenge.