Five years after Covid-19, what did I learn?

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 Pandemic Declaration, we find ourselves at a dangerous moment. The main agencies responsible for protecting the health of the American people are now led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who openly and constantly ignore scientific evidence. As secretary of human health and services, he supervises emblematic institutions, such as national health institutes, centers for disease control and prevention and administration for food and drugs. All have been central for the Covid-19 response of the nation and will be essential for how we respond to current and future threats.

These agencies are naked by financing and experienced experts, world leader. The essential data of online public health disappeared, the public communications from these – central agencies for informing the actions of local and state officials – have been stopped and new rules have been established, including eliminating data on gender and demography. These actions undermine the quality of research, education and communication on key problems from heart disease. Kennedy was also the loudest voice in a dangerous choir not confused by vaccines, ignoring overwhelming evidence and sowing distrust in these life rescue tools.

Five years after the worst pandemic in a century has begun to spread all over the globe, we find ourselves in a world in which confidence in science and public health is diminished and where the most powerful voices are supplied by ideology, do not of evidence. How did we get here and how do we do better to move on?

The United States did not do it as well in Covid’s communication as many experts have anticipated. While the actors of good faith have exploited each wrong step and the error of public health officials from all over Pandemia, in public health, we must understand and take responsibility for our errors. Only through this process, can we begin to rebuild confidence in public health – both to counteract misleading information not accepted by evidence and to help Americans live healthier lives.

So what is the most common error the public health leaders have done during the pandemic? Treating science as established knowledge, rather than an open, transparent and dynamic process in which we continuously refine questions and answers that lead to evidence -based actions. Many of the successes in our pandemic response, such as the speed of the Warp operation, which gave the world the vaccines that save life, came from the actual and respectful pursuit of the scientific process. On the other hand, many of the wrong stages came when health officials failed to follow the scientific process, which requires an update of our understanding and our recommendations, because new evidence and data are generated.

Following the scientific process means being dynamic. The recommendations for the 6-meter distance made a sense in February 2020, but not until April or May, when I knew that Copid was spread through the air, in aerosols that could travel tens of meters in a closed room, making the distance May little important and better ventilation key to reduce the interior spread. The use of routine fans for patients facing respiratory failure made sense in March 2020, but it is no longer until September, when there were much better evidence about their benefits and damage.

Even the Pandemic’s Most Controversial Policy – Vaccine Mandates – Was Reasonable in April 2021, When Health Experts Believed That Vaccination Would Prevent Infections and Transmission, But Certainly Did Not Make By April 2023, When We KNEW THAT VACCINATIONS HAD ONLY A MODEST IMPACT ON SOMEST IMPACT ON SOMEST Transmission. And, possibly, the most unrecognizable example of our inability to update our recommendations based on evidence was the failure to open the schools in the autumn of 2020.

The new leadership in the public health agencies of the nation now has the opportunity to learn from what it has worked and has not done it during the pandemic response. From the new leadership, I will look for three key strategies to better manage current and future outbreaks.

The first is transparency. Public health officials must openly recognize uncertainty and explain the reason behind their decisions in real time. For example, early messenger, such as “Flatten the Curve”, were often misinterpreted as a goal for himself, because its wider goal – time to buy time to expand testing and treatment – has not been clearly communicated.

The “Flatten the Curve” guide initially contributed to the prevention of hospitals to be completely overwhelmed. Prohibitions for large meetings, shelter orders in place and similar measures have helped Prevent up to 35 million cases of cover in the United States until the end of April 2020. However, the lack of a clear, The long -term national plan To increase transparent testing and communication about what we learned about the virus in this time meant People have lost confidence in their original recommendation and its purpose. As the situations evolve, the explanation of the reasoning behind the decisions is essential, so that the public understands and remain employed.

Secondly, adaptation to new evidence is essential. For example, in the summer of 2020, it was not clear whether the states were ready to open schools safely. By the end of September, the schools in states like Florida and Rhode Island were opened, The evidence began to accumulate That, even with modest mitigation measures, such as testing, opening schools did not lead to significantly higher transmission rates. Thus, by the end of September, it was clear that schools can open safely throughout the country. Despite this clarity of evidence, many states and communities have maintained closed schools, including most of the schools in Massachusetts, which has led to many parents who are struggling to balance work and child, significant learning losses – and additional distrust in recommendations of public health.

Third, after the scientific process is what helps to save life. Let us remember that, in the last century, the world was witnessing a doubling of life expectancy, the death rates decreasing for each age group. The main engine of all these earnings is not ideology, but a commitment to the scientific process, which is determined by a commitment for rigorous test What works and share transparently how scientists reach evidence so that others can investigate and confirm or improve the results. This solving of collective problems is the basis of modern drugs. It was essential for obtaining vaccines and treatments that contributed to the conclusion of the Covid pandemic.

As we now face a new set of threats for public health and, under a new leadership, take these lessons before. Transparency, adapting recommendations in light of new evidence and following the scientific process is how to promote the health and quality of life, in emergencies of public health and every day.

Dr. Ashish K. JHA is the dean of the Public Health School of the University of Brown and a Globe opinion writer.