My experience working on COVID within public health was very different from the author’s. I am a physician, have an MPH in epidemiology and have worked extensively on health capacity building internationally. I found the system quite concrete in its attitude, protocols, structure and willingness to consider modifications of what the team…
My experience working on COVID within public health was very different from the author’s. I am a physician, have an MPH in epidemiology and have worked extensively on health capacity building internationally. I found the system quite concrete in its attitude, protocols, structure and willingness to consider modifications of what the team was doing in order to enhance data collecting. The public health response team was large, hundreds, which made it a huge ship that could only be turned by a hand paddle. We collected symptom data on everyone who would speak with us. But we never categorized that data as mild, moderate or severe. So we missed an opportunity to see how behavior, virus, or vaccines were changing the degree of illness. It was completely unscientific.
When monoclonal antibodies emerged we did not encourage enough high risk people to access them at the free infusion sites that were set up. This made zero sense in some cases as the contact tracers and case investigators were the only “health” contact some people had.
When the vaccines rolled out the emphasis was shifted there and while the quick set up of mass vaccination sites was an accomplishment there was no discussion about addressing data on effectiveness or safety. By February, 2 months into the roll out, we started seeing breakthrough infections largely among HCWs and when we discussed concerns about this with the higher ups we were told to collect the data. Remarkably it was not until July, 4 months later, that the CDC acknowledged breakthrough infections in their MMWR on the Barnstable, Mass outbreak.
While working on outbreak investigations we were given implausible criteria to use to claim outbreaks at businesses. There was no way with any degree of certainty the data we were collecting on some locations could accurately define an outbreak. That is when I decided to leave. The protocols and decision making were not moving toward collecting meaningful data or information. Overall my experience was disappointing and eye opening.
One thing I will add. The person who wrote this post was brave to do so. His views and voice should be allowed as should be mine. Until we do a thorough post mortem on the public health response during the pandemic we will not learn and history will repeat itself.
My experience working on COVID within public health was very different from the author’s. I am a physician, have an MPH in epidemiology and have worked extensively on health capacity building internationally. I found the system quite concrete in its attitude, protocols, structure and willingness to consider modifications of what the team was doing in order to enhance data collecting. The public health response team was large, hundreds, which made it a huge ship that could only be turned by a hand paddle. We collected symptom data on everyone who would speak with us. But we never categorized that data as mild, moderate or severe. So we missed an opportunity to see how behavior, virus, or vaccines were changing the degree of illness. It was completely unscientific.
When monoclonal antibodies emerged we did not encourage enough high risk people to access them at the free infusion sites that were set up. This made zero sense in some cases as the contact tracers and case investigators were the only “health” contact some people had.
When the vaccines rolled out the emphasis was shifted there and while the quick set up of mass vaccination sites was an accomplishment there was no discussion about addressing data on effectiveness or safety. By February, 2 months into the roll out, we started seeing breakthrough infections largely among HCWs and when we discussed concerns about this with the higher ups we were told to collect the data. Remarkably it was not until July, 4 months later, that the CDC acknowledged breakthrough infections in their MMWR on the Barnstable, Mass outbreak.
While working on outbreak investigations we were given implausible criteria to use to claim outbreaks at businesses. There was no way with any degree of certainty the data we were collecting on some locations could accurately define an outbreak. That is when I decided to leave. The protocols and decision making were not moving toward collecting meaningful data or information. Overall my experience was disappointing and eye opening.
One thing I will add. The person who wrote this post was brave to do so. His views and voice should be allowed as should be mine. Until we do a thorough post mortem on the public health response during the pandemic we will not learn and history will repeat itself.