“Fattening” the Curve: Funding Equitable Scientific Research After the Pandemic

by: barbara allen

During the early weeks of the pandemic several visual epidemiological models were reproduced across multiple media for public understanding and persuasion: the exposure curve and the contagion graphic and COVID-19 projection curves. Using models as predictive tools to “flatten the curve” became public shorthand for the reasoning behind behavioral parameters for pandemic mitigation including social distancing measures, mask-wearing, and stay-home orders. This infusion of evidence-based science into political action and policy was heartening and commendable.

While models are useful for guiding rapid public health responses, they are based on utilitarian thinking: the best outcome for the population as whole. They are broad brush approaches to guide emergency planning by relying on statistical modeling assumptions. They narrow the social realm to a calculable entity, homogenized such that cultural diversities fall aside. While during this crisis it’s judicious to consider the population overall, there is ample evidence to suggest that some communities are bearing a disproportionate health burden in this grand social experiment. Understanding negative health outcomes falling outside of the statistical curve, or metaphorically speaking, “fattening” the curve, will be an important goal for future research.

During the initial “stay-home” phase of the pandemic, some communities, such as African American and Native American communities, have experienced much higher infection and death rates than the population as a whole. This has been attributed to preexisting health disparities, such as the elevated prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. While poverty and health inequities often align, I suspect this only tells a partial story of the pandemic’s toll on vulnerable communities. The primary tool given to “flatten the curve” and lower transmission was: to stay home, social distance, hand wash often and wear a mask. These were generic individual behavior modification decisions making them social context indifferent.

Communities, however, are not collections of individuals. Cultural norms and practices don’t easily conform to a monocultural behavior template mandated or suggested by government officials. After the pandemic subsides, we need to build reliable knowledge on the ground about successes and failures in “flattening the curve” in the hardest hit communities during the early phase of the pandemic. What social rhythms were disrupted and what suggested behavior modifications were difficult? Were they related to infrastructure (i.e. running water, transportation), patterns of financial support (i.e. hazardous employment, paydays), extended family living and caregiving, distrust of government, religious commitments, or other culturally specific activities?

Scientists could work with communities most devastated by the virus to understand the disconnect with the one-size-fits-all prescriptive measures during the early phase of the pandemic. This means doing public health research with specific communities, as full participants, from developing the problems set and questions asked about the failures/successes to analyzing both the preliminary health data and deciding what more needs to be understood. This can lead to more effective policy responses based on complexities of more vulnerable communities rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all mathematical model. Understanding disease response and developing better response for better outcomes, requires listening to people. Insights from local engagement can even help make models with local contexts and social norms accounted for making them more effective and predictive.

Funding for post-pandemic research should look to “fatten” the curve, to understand and explain the outlier health data in communities not represented by the statistical models and formulae driven response. Successful research projects will build capacity at the local level such that they can be full participants in hypothesizing, collecting, analyzing data and proposing better practices for limiting exposure and insuring the health of communities. Socially robust science that comes from collaborative research can better inform health recommendations that are deemed valid and trusted by the community.

Learning how to live with viruses and equitably lessening their impact may require different ways of living for more socially-just health outcomes.

Activism in Hard Times

by: Fernando tormos-aponte

Millions of us marched in the streets. We called on elected leaders to act on climate, healthcare, racism, and inequality. The election season was in full swing. We wondered if our dreams would fit in a ballot box. As we prepared to cast our votes, the Coronavirus pandemic changed everything.

We are now coming to terms with the fact that nothing about our politics and public policies can be taken for granted. Yet, for many, politics have never offered any guarantees.

Building and sustaining democratic institutions will require collaborations across various social and political differences. As we work to demand evidence-based policies and transition our organizing efforts online, we must build on what we know about strengthening advocacy and mobilizing across differences.

I am a social scientist who studies social movements and a new Kendall Fellow with UCS’ Center for Science and Democracy. Together, we are working to support and diversify science advocacy by sharing insights from social science on how social movements come together, how they cope with the challenges of diversifying, and why movements matter.

This is the first of a series of blog entries on this topic. This series will feature fellow members of the UCS working group on strengthening science advocacy. Our blogs will use a social science lens to spotlight important organizing work being done, discuss equity questions, and share information on existing resources that organizers can use in their work. We are working to move more of our colleagues into engaging in the political process.

Here I share a few ways for people to get involved during times of crisis, and why these forms of engagement matter.

Movements matter

I’ll start by saying that social movements matter. Movements are not only drivers of social change, they also act as representatives of the people they mobilize.

Movements can even act as representatives of marginalized groups. When they do, governments are more responsive to the issues of disadvantaged people.

The ongoing pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge for our public and institutional health. Uncertainty rules. For many, voting was already very difficult, if not impossible, and we have yet to adopt the measures needed to celebrate free and fair elections during this pandemic. This is not good for any country that claims to be a democracy.

For these reasons, we should be mindful of the many ways in which we can become engaged and contribute to enhancing democracy during this time. The continuity of our democracy is at stake.

So, how can you help?

Organizations are important drivers of engagement. They help build connections between people, coordinate advocacy efforts, and build collective power. Most mobilization occurs under the auspices of movement organizations. Organizations can also make activism more durable and powerful.

During this time of crisis and physical distancing, some organizations will be able to draw support from the relationships they built offline prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Others, however, will have less resources to draw from and must find ways to recruit and mobilize through digital means.

If you are already involved in an organization or network, this is a good time to get a sense of how the organization is transitioning its work to a digital format. Many have issued demands around the COVID-19 crisis and are calling on members to use social media to amplify these demands.

Turning outrage into action

The COVID-19 pandemic is, in many ways, paralyzing. Many of us will mourn the loss of someone we know, including friends and loved ones. The stress and grief that this moment induces affects our abilities to do what we would like to do.

While some may prefer that social movements avoid calling on people to mobilize during these hard times, we must remember that our actions are a matter of life and death. Our efforts to move governments and corporations to act can save lives.

When Puerto Ricans learned about the death toll after hurricane María, many gathered to grieve collectively, but they also demonstrated their outrage over government negligence. This outrage spilled over into the massive demonstrations in Puerto Rico last summer. During these times, we can channel our outrage in ways that push our governments to act in ways that save lives and improve our livelihoods.

Opportunities for change

These are particularly important times for us to get engaged. While crises open opportunities for us to make strides on some of our demands, we will also have to defend our longstanding victories. This is why, in the words of Stuart Hall, politics offer no guarantees.

One of the major opportunities for government action is in the area of mass incarceration. Criminal justice reform activists and prison abolitionists have been calling on governments to reduce prison populations. The diligent work of activists and scholars who raised concerns over the high risk of transmission within correctional facilities prompted one of the largest pushes to decarcerate in our times.

These government actions are certainly promising, but we must continue to push governments to enact legislation to make sure that they do not continue to incarcerate people who should have never been incarcerated in the first place. We need to fight for the permanence of these victories.

Defending our democracy

As the crisis opens up opportunities for movement victories, it also gives those who stand to win from voter suppression a chance to continue eroding our democracy. A particularly important issue to get involved in is voting rights.

The fight for voting rights is still ongoing in many fronts. Scientists can play an important role in campaigns aiming to restore voting rights and eliminate barriers to voting. For instance, UCS is calling on the scientific community to tell Congress to safeguard our elections.

The pandemic presents unprecedented challenges for the electoral system. The federal government has only apportioned $400 million out of the $2 billion needed to finance the measures needed to Corona-proof our elections.

The next few weeks and months will test our spirits and our democracy. We must find ways to ensure our physical, mental, and institutional health. Governments and corporations will not concede without demand, and this is why we must resort to collective action.