Learning is not an instantaneous process. However, some of us do internalize conversations like the one referenced here, and consider it when we revisit these issues. Katelyn has demonstrated an ability to change based on new knowledge repeatedly, or that’s my impression based on following her writings for several years now. I know I wil…
Learning is not an instantaneous process. However, some of us do internalize conversations like the one referenced here, and consider it when we revisit these issues. Katelyn has demonstrated an ability to change based on new knowledge repeatedly, or that’s my impression based on following her writings for several years now. I know I will be reviewing these points, and will try to pay more attention to the points Kelley made. I’m not likely to completely revise my considered opinions, but I’ve stated for a long time that the primary failing of public health professionals over the last 4 years has been in our communication methods and presentation. For the most part, PH personnel could intercommunicate but we did not meet the public’s needs.
Of course, we also had to contend with he whole public world looking over our collective shoulder as we attempted to understand and interpret data and create recommended policy, with critiques of the process sometimes happening in real time. So, we were fielding questions and criticism from the public and participating in the sometimes cantankerous process of determining what we thought we knew.
We had policy recommendations, especially early, that could have been better if we'd had more/better information but we were working from a pandemic/outbreak plan that was predicated on an H5 influenza outbreak, misunderstood aerosol transmission dynamics, had been abandoned by the administration at the outset and seen the appropriate planners scattered to different agencies or completely ousted, and were trying to reassemble a plan for an airborne, apparently respiratory viral agent we knew nothing about. Those policies were ONLY wrong in retrospect. That said, PH made recommendations, politicians derived policies but made sure PH was prominently mentioned as the origins of said policies even if we had not phrased things as the politicians did.
So, in a lot of ways, yes, we made errors but were doing the best we could with the tools we had available at the time. I've said it here, and on other forums: I had days where my professional opinion could change more than once in a 24 hour period as new data and articles came in that were evaluated to be meaningful and trustworthy. My recommendations initially were not "wrong" but could be superceded by new information and knowledge.
Learning is not an instantaneous process. However, some of us do internalize conversations like the one referenced here, and consider it when we revisit these issues. Katelyn has demonstrated an ability to change based on new knowledge repeatedly, or that’s my impression based on following her writings for several years now. I know I will be reviewing these points, and will try to pay more attention to the points Kelley made. I’m not likely to completely revise my considered opinions, but I’ve stated for a long time that the primary failing of public health professionals over the last 4 years has been in our communication methods and presentation. For the most part, PH personnel could intercommunicate but we did not meet the public’s needs.
Of course, we also had to contend with he whole public world looking over our collective shoulder as we attempted to understand and interpret data and create recommended policy, with critiques of the process sometimes happening in real time. So, we were fielding questions and criticism from the public and participating in the sometimes cantankerous process of determining what we thought we knew.
One of the points Kellie is making is that many PH policies were wrong - which is something more than just a communications problem.
We had policy recommendations, especially early, that could have been better if we'd had more/better information but we were working from a pandemic/outbreak plan that was predicated on an H5 influenza outbreak, misunderstood aerosol transmission dynamics, had been abandoned by the administration at the outset and seen the appropriate planners scattered to different agencies or completely ousted, and were trying to reassemble a plan for an airborne, apparently respiratory viral agent we knew nothing about. Those policies were ONLY wrong in retrospect. That said, PH made recommendations, politicians derived policies but made sure PH was prominently mentioned as the origins of said policies even if we had not phrased things as the politicians did.
So, in a lot of ways, yes, we made errors but were doing the best we could with the tools we had available at the time. I've said it here, and on other forums: I had days where my professional opinion could change more than once in a 24 hour period as new data and articles came in that were evaluated to be meaningful and trustworthy. My recommendations initially were not "wrong" but could be superceded by new information and knowledge.