想象一下现在和那时的流行病:一个世纪的医疗失败。

IF 3.6 3区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Mark Honigsbaum
{"title":"想象一下现在和那时的流行病:一个世纪的医疗失败。","authors":"Mark Honigsbaum","doi":"10.1098/rsfs.2021.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ever since the devastating 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, policy makers have employed mathematical models to predict the course of epidemics and pandemics in an effort to mitigate their worst impacts. But while Britain has long been a pioneer of predictive epidemiology and disease modellers occupied influential positions on key committees that advised the government on its response to the coronavirus pandemic, as in 1918 Britain mounted one of the least effective responses to Covid-19 of any country in the world. Arguing that this 'failure of expertise' was the result of medical and political complacency and over-reliance on disease models predicated on influenza, this paper uses the lens of medical history to show how medical attitudes to Covid-19 mirrored those of the English medical profession in 1918. Rather than putting our faith in preventive medicine and statistical technologies to predict the course of epidemics and dictate suppressive measures in future, I argue we need to cultivate more profound forms of imaginative engagement with infectious disease outbreaks that take account of the long history of quarantines and the lived experiences of pandemics. A useful starting point would be to recognize that while measures such as the R° may be useful for calculating the reproductive rate of a virus, they can never capture the full risks of pandemics or their social complexity.</p>","PeriodicalId":13795,"journal":{"name":"Interface Focus","volume":"11 6","pages":"20210029"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504896/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imagining pandemics now, and then: a century of medical failure.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Honigsbaum\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsfs.2021.0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ever since the devastating 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, policy makers have employed mathematical models to predict the course of epidemics and pandemics in an effort to mitigate their worst impacts. But while Britain has long been a pioneer of predictive epidemiology and disease modellers occupied influential positions on key committees that advised the government on its response to the coronavirus pandemic, as in 1918 Britain mounted one of the least effective responses to Covid-19 of any country in the world. Arguing that this 'failure of expertise' was the result of medical and political complacency and over-reliance on disease models predicated on influenza, this paper uses the lens of medical history to show how medical attitudes to Covid-19 mirrored those of the English medical profession in 1918. Rather than putting our faith in preventive medicine and statistical technologies to predict the course of epidemics and dictate suppressive measures in future, I argue we need to cultivate more profound forms of imaginative engagement with infectious disease outbreaks that take account of the long history of quarantines and the lived experiences of pandemics. A useful starting point would be to recognize that while measures such as the R° may be useful for calculating the reproductive rate of a virus, they can never capture the full risks of pandemics or their social complexity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interface Focus\",\"volume\":\"11 6\",\"pages\":\"20210029\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504896/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interface Focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0029\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interface Focus","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自1918-1919年毁灭性的流感大流行以来,决策者一直采用数学模型来预测流行病和大流行的进程,以减轻其最严重的影响。但是,尽管英国长期以来一直是预测流行病学的先驱,疾病建模者在向政府提供应对冠状病毒大流行建议的关键委员会中占据了有影响力的位置,但在1918年,英国对Covid-19的反应是世界上任何国家中最不有效的之一。本文认为,这种“专业知识的失败”是医学和政治上的自满情绪以及过度依赖基于流感的疾病模型的结果,本文使用医学史的镜头来展示医学对Covid-19的态度如何反映了1918年英国医学界的态度。我认为,我们不应该把信心寄托在预防医学和统计技术上,以预测流行病的进程,并规定未来的抑制措施,我们需要培养更深刻的、富有想象力的参与方式,考虑到隔离的悠久历史和流行病的亲身经历。一个有益的出发点是认识到,虽然诸如R°之类的措施可能有助于计算病毒的繁殖率,但它们永远无法捕捉到大流行病的全部风险或其社会复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Imagining pandemics now, and then: a century of medical failure.

Ever since the devastating 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, policy makers have employed mathematical models to predict the course of epidemics and pandemics in an effort to mitigate their worst impacts. But while Britain has long been a pioneer of predictive epidemiology and disease modellers occupied influential positions on key committees that advised the government on its response to the coronavirus pandemic, as in 1918 Britain mounted one of the least effective responses to Covid-19 of any country in the world. Arguing that this 'failure of expertise' was the result of medical and political complacency and over-reliance on disease models predicated on influenza, this paper uses the lens of medical history to show how medical attitudes to Covid-19 mirrored those of the English medical profession in 1918. Rather than putting our faith in preventive medicine and statistical technologies to predict the course of epidemics and dictate suppressive measures in future, I argue we need to cultivate more profound forms of imaginative engagement with infectious disease outbreaks that take account of the long history of quarantines and the lived experiences of pandemics. A useful starting point would be to recognize that while measures such as the R° may be useful for calculating the reproductive rate of a virus, they can never capture the full risks of pandemics or their social complexity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interface Focus
Interface Focus BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Each Interface Focus themed issue is devoted to a particular subject at the interface of the physical and life sciences. Formed of high-quality articles, they aim to facilitate cross-disciplinary research across this traditional divide by acting as a forum accessible to all. Topics may be newly emerging areas of research or dynamic aspects of more established fields. Organisers of each Interface Focus are strongly encouraged to contextualise the journal within their chosen subject.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信