HLSS310 WEEK 7 DISCUSSION

Discussion post: Discussion Questions:

Part 1. Discuss why public health leadership is important during a disease crisis and explain why/how a disease crisis is therefore inherently political. 

Part 2. Describe what the actions of a leader were in a public health crisis, from the founding of our nation to the present, and if their actions adequately solved the crisis or brought on risks to Americans and/or our country.

Part 3. Elaborate on an animal health crisis that occurred anywhere in the world, what the leaders did (or attempted to do) to help control the fear/turmoil, and if they were ultimately successful or not.

Part 4. Summarize a challenge that a leader faced during a public health or animal health crisis and explain if they were successful or not in conveying, to the public, the seriousness of the issue.

Response #1 (Tara): Hello, Class and Professor, and welcome to Week 7! I hope you all are enjoying the spring weather and daylight savings time. I have my baby shower this weekend, so I wanted to get ahead of my assignments. I hope you enjoy my post this week. 

Part 1: Importance of Public Health Leadership During Disease Crises

In disease crises, public health leadership is pivotal in orchestrating effective responses to mitigate the impact on communities. Public health leaders are responsible for coordinating resources, implementing interventions, and communicating vital information to the public to safeguard public health and minimize the spread of disease. Their actions are crucial in guiding decision-making processes and fostering collaboration among various stakeholders, including government agencies, healthcare providers, and the community.

A disease crisis inherently becomes political due to its far-reaching implications on society, economy, and governance. The allocation of resources, implementation of public health measures, and decision-making processes during a disease crisis are often subject to political scrutiny and influence. Political leaders must make policy decisions that balance public health imperatives with economic considerations, civil liberties, and public opinion. Moreover, the communication of health information and risk assessments can be politicized, leading to conflicting narratives and public confusion.

Part 2: Historical Actions of Public Health Leaders

Throughout history, public health leaders have faced numerous disease crises, each posing unique challenges and requiring decisive leadership. One notable example is the response to the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia, where Dr. Benjamin Rush emerged as a prominent leader. Rush advocated for public health measures such as quarantine, sanitation, and public education to control the spread of the disease. While his efforts helped contain the epidemic to some extent, they also sparked controversy and resistance from citizens, highlighting the tension between public health mandates and individual liberties.

In the modern era, leaders such as Dr. C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States from 1982 to 1989, have played critical roles in responding to infectious disease crises such as HIV/AIDS. Koop’s leadership was characterized by his commitment to evidence-based public health interventions, advocacy for preventive measures, and effective communication with the public. Despite facing political and social obstacles, Koop’s initiatives contributed to raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and reducing the stigma associated with the disease.

Part 3: Animal Health Crisis Response

One notable animal health crisis occurred during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom. In response to the crisis, leaders in veterinary medicine and the government implemented stringent control measures, including culling infected livestock, movement restrictions, and biosecurity protocols. Despite these efforts, the FMD outbreak resulted in significant economic losses, social upheaval, and public outcry due to perceived inadequacies in the government’s response.

Part 4: Challenges in Conveying the Seriousness of Health Crises

A significant challenge leaders face during public health crises is effectively communicating the seriousness of the situation to the public. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders worldwide encountered difficulties in conveying the evolving nature of the threat, the importance of preventive measures such as mask-wearing and social distancing, and the uncertainties surrounding the virus. Mixed messaging, misinformation, and politicization of public health guidance contributed to public confusion and skepticism, hindering efforts to control the spread of the virus.

In conclusion, public health leadership is indispensable in navigating disease crises, but it is inherently political due to the complex interplay of health, socio-economic, and political factors. Learning from historical and contemporary examples of leadership during health crises can inform strategies to address current and future challenges in safeguarding public health and well-being.

References:

Barry, J. M. (2004). The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. Penguin.

National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Changing the face of medicine | Dr. C. Everett Koop. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/…

Response #2 (Schuppe): Good Afternoon Class, 

I hope everyone is having a good Monday. 

Part 1: 

Disease crises’ in recent years have posed a great threat to the United States’ and impacted entire generations. The two different models of response, the Giuliani Model and the Glendening model, highlight the importance of the relationship  between public health officials and elected officials. With the Giuliani Model, public health officials give recommendations and expert advice to the elected officials, who then make policy based off of expert opinion, whereas the Glendening model has the decision-making being delegated to the public health officials with the support of the elected officials. In either scenario, open lines of communication, understanding of one’s role, mutual respect of position and experience, as well as a unified voice in delivering correspondence to the public is crucial. Ultimately, a disease crisis is inevitably political because the decision is on the elected officials as to who will do what and what entities control what aspect of the response. It is only after decision-making power has been delegated that public health officials can assume control over all or some aspects of a disease crisis response. 

Part 2: 

The months following the 9/11 attacks were quite grim and anxious in the United States, especially New York City. Al-Qaeda proceeded to then launch a bio-attack through the United States Postal Service by sending envelopes with powdered anthrax spores to various mailing addresses throughout the country. Mayor Giuliani was the figurehead of the response to the anthrax crisis in New York. Although the Mayor Giuliani was the main decision maker during the anthrax response, he took expert advice from a team of public health officials and included them in every step of the response. He was proactive in mitigating the effects of such an attack because he stood up a counter-WMD council years before the anthrax attack had ever happened. He also communicated early and often with health officials and the citizens of New York City to ensure there was adequate information to dispel any rumors that may have formed, put the public mind at ease, and give the public confidence in the government’s ability, with the guidance of the public health sector, to adequately respond to this crisis. Because of Giuliani’s actions, New York City’s response, despite being in a state of disaster recovery, was a success. 

Part 3: 

An animal health crisis that had a great impact on the UK was the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy crisis (BSE), popularly known as “mad cow disease.” BSE is a neuro-degenerative disease that is found mostly in cows, however the disease did break the animal to animal and animal to human barrier and began to infect sheep and humans respectively. The first human cases of the new variant known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), were not seen until almost a decade after the first infected cow was discovered. Looking back to the first council meetings that convened to combat the BSE epidemic starting in 1984, it would appear that leaders were not so proactive in figuring out a course of action, given council wouldn’t see its first zoological expert added to its members until 1988. Despite the delay, the field experts and elected officials appeared to always try their best to calm the public’s anxiety and hysteria. News of potential food scares seem to always spread faster in the media than science-based information put out by elected and public health officials. However, the British Parliament stayed the course and provided a unified front to the public, although there was push-back from the farmers affected by the crisis. Unfortunately, there was an unprecedented amount of suicide committed by the farmers who lost their livelihoods because of it. But, however tragic and for the good of any nation, leaders need to make the hard decisions to limit the damage done to the public, and return conditions to normal.  

Part 4: 

In 2009, almost 3 decades after the initial emergence of the swine flu in the US, there was a new strain that contained swine, avian, and human genes that began to infect people starting in Mexico and eventually reaching into the United States in Southern California. President Barrack Obama had just recently taken office, and did not yet have a Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services because some Republicans were attempting to block his appointee. Although it would appear the United States was ill-equipped to address the public on the issue, President Obama attempted to calm the fears of the nation by stating that the disease was a “cause for deep concern, not panic.” Such words, brevity, and professionalism began a relationship of confidence and understanding between the President and the public. But, however great his efforts were, Vice President Joe Biden sowed seeds of panic among the public shortly thereafter by stating “he would not advise his family to travel anywhere in aircraft or other confined places.” Although effective in conveying a message of grave concern, this would prove the be one of many instances the then Vice President would choose the less-than-optimal option in regard to addressing the public.