Search

Communicating about racial equity and COVID-19: Connecting data to context

See more research on public health communication

Reading Amanda Windle's briefing note I was struck by the question of trust and authority, particularly its absence, and the challenges that raises for crafting a communications strategy for The Simon Community and, by extension, other communities.

In watching the US Senate Panel question public health experts, the inherent distrust toward science and scientists by many republican senators and Lt Governors remains alarming. Conversely Goldman Sach's recently issued a report that wearing masks could save the US economy a 5% hit to the GDP. If this report has an impact, will it signal that economists are more trustworthy that public health officials, or simply that monetary value is the only value that counts in COVID communications. 

I am thinking about the interplay of these differing scales of authority and trust and how difficult it is for individuals, families and local communities and care groups to make sense of the competing messages in order to craft a reasonable, sensible strategy for negotiating risk.

META: Water seems to be one important medium through which NOLA envisions the “impacts” of the Anthropocene—scarcity, abundance, temporalities and spatial distributions, management of, and hazards that emerge in its context. Less is said about the causal or attributional aspects of the Anthropocene. How might water function as an entry point into the assemblages of local anthropocenics?

I found the NOLA Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2018, which frames the impacts of the Anthropocene as an intersection of weather extremes amid climate change and evolving vulnerabilities of its people. Four of seven items in the executive summary note water as central to local interventions: flood awareness, flood repair, flood mitigation, flood infrastructure. Too much water or water in the wrong places and the aftereffect of water on infrastructure and lives. One expression, then, is preparedness.

MACRO: Mitigation is an interesting analytic for the Anthropocene. In the US mitigation plans are shaped by the 1988 Stafford Act (which amended the 1974 Disaster Relief Act). Constraints on communities come through rules, regulations, policies, (dis)incentives, and surveillance by state and federal authorities. Much of this is bound by economic and administrative discourses.

Goals are set in this document—broken out by timelines, activities, priorities, and capabilities. Another expression is classification of anthropocenics by subfields and accounting metrics. How do we measure progress and what is deferred to the future, 5-10 years out from today, a goal that has no tangible accountability but is named and acknowledged. What are the practices of naming, responsibility, and making (in)visible in the Anthropocene?

BIO: One new initiative, Ready for Rain, in particular is of interest to me as it highlights the more neoliberal vision for how the public should self-regulate risk and mitigate harm. I hear this as an extension of a government agency program to make the nation Weather Ready. Other bullets highlight “green” buildings, energies, and infrastructures. These could be examples of how the city envisions the Anthropocene feedback loop of humans changing/planning for climate alterations, which is a fairly typical lens.

Some questions: What does the water do? What does the water know? If we trace water in all its instantiations (e.g. historical water, flow of water, chemistry of water, application of water, temperature of water), what do we learn about the future imaginaries of what NOLA will / could / ought to become?

Resilience is a term that is widely embraced by many in city management and planning. It holds the positive gloss not just of recovery but bouncing back better. To my ears, it has become one of many anthems of the Anthropocene, a kind of restrained tempo thrumming along through communities that will adapt to climate change (or seasonal-to-subseasonal climate variability post Trump). They will mitigate, innovate, transform, strategize in order to endure unanticipated shocks, both chronic and acute.

NOLA is one of 100 Resilient Cities named by the Rockefeller Foundation sometime in 2013. Like others selected across the globe, the city of New Orleans would benefit from the resources of a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO), an expert in resilience to be hired to work within city governance to develop a strategic plan; NOLA's was published in 2015. Selection of the cities for the "100 Resilient Cities" initiative was difficult, a competitive bid for resources based primarily on a city's recent experience with disaster, usually connected to a weather or climate extreme (e.g. hurricane, flood, etc). Resources were provided via the hierarchy of the CRO, sometimes to hire staff, develop training for the community, and create working groups and to write the stratetic plan. As one former directer of NOLA RC said of this opportunity provided by Katrina, the disaster that qualified NOLA for Rockefeller monies, it demonstrates the need for an the age of resilience. In what ways is resilience measured, accounted for, adjudicated and managed through or in spite of this strategic document? 

The language of resilience includes many terms that I think of as a collective imaginary of utopian preparedness, a vision for a nation that is--in the parlance of the weather prediction community in which I work--weather ready. Through the filter of resilience, then, vulnerability (another problematic term) is eradicated through individual action, community engineering, and adherance to strategic policies like 100RC. Yet how does this image of NOLA, one of "mindful citizenry" engaged in "partnerships" around the city (terms used in their summary video), match with the realities of living in NOLA, today and in the everyday future?

Resilience is also a term widely critiqued in STS and the broader social science and humanistic disciplines. For good reason. Common questions in this literature: What counts as resilience? Who decides? At what costs? Resilience against what? What does resilience elide? How has the discourse of resilience reframed individual and community accountability? What is the political economy of resilience? I'm interested in the discourses of preparedness and planning, and "the eventness" of disaster, as Scott has highlighted many times. But my concern is not just to critique and tear down concepts like resilence (or vulnerability). I worry that we then evicerate common lexicons of hope and imaginaries of the future that do some good. How are we as field campus participants and those who re-envision or reveal the quotidian reflexive? How do we triage the Anthropocene amid our own state of compromise--as scholars, participants in Capitalism, in post colonialism, humans? What are our ethical commitments? How do we make good? 

This registry allows for the tracking of the health effects of the 9/11 disaster. It is open to the public, where they can see the most common disorders and afflictions that those effected by 9/11 are dealing with today. The public can access this website and read up on the rates of lung infection, heart disease, PTSD, alcohol use, as well as the effect it has had on adolescent health. This registry was not only set up for the public use though, it is also used and produced by researchers. The researchers track the longterm health effects 9/11 has had on those exposed. The data also provides experts and researchers with the means to draw conclusions and analyses. Learning about the long term effects of 9/11 will raise awareness as well as allow for the understanding of how disasters of this caliber can effect those around it, in both long term and short term ways. 

Researchers use this system extensively in order to find correlations between 9/11 and different repercussions as well as to collect and gather data about those who were exposed during 9/11. A unique aspect of this registry is that it contains more participants than any other registry of its kind, making it a great tool for researchers. The public also utilizes this information to study their own forms of various research as well as to gain knowledge on possible afflictions related to the event. The registry also follows up with participants with interviews and matches with other health registries. The website also offers resources to researchers to learn more about the research at hand and where to find other published reports about 9/11.

The registry is funded with federal tax dollars. New York City itself has funded specific projects for the registry research, for example the respiratory study of Lower Manhattan. The registry is hosted by NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene but is mostly paid for by federal taxes. 

As mentioned, this site offers data on long term health afflictions of those exposed to 9/11. Yet the site also offers information about the participants in the registry. How they were selected, how many people are entered in the registry and where their exact locations were during the attacks. On top of providing data on the participants, the site also offers information on funding, as well as access to annual reports addressing the health impacts of 9/11. The site also gives access to those that the registry works with and collaborates with. The history behind the registry and the attacks are also provided. Sources for all data and a full bibliography is also available along with information about legal aspects of the health and compensation act, enrollee's confidentiality and thousands of other resources. 

The data is mainly visualized in report form. There is also a section of the site where data and statistics that have been confirmed are written out separated by disease/disorder type. So in the "what we know" tab PTSD, depression, tobacco use, asthma, lung function, respiratory issues, heart disease and adolescent health are separated into different sections with confirmed disease rates, correlations and numbers listed beneath each section. The same group that runs this registry in terms of research, called the 'WTC Medical Working Group' also provides links to other current studies on the matter, some of which they have partaken in. 

This site runs like any run of the mill website. If there are any issues or questions about the website there is contact information provided to seek assistance with the site or ask questions regarding the information. 

By phone: 866-692-9827
By email: wtchr@health.nyc.gov
By fax: 347-396-2893
By mail: WTC Health Registry
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
42-09 28th Street, CN 6W
Queens, NY 11101-4132