My eyes skimmed the document to find The Graph. Compared to past editions of the Behavioral Health Monthly Forecasts (that I described in a recent post), The Graph featured a third line:
The authors in the source document comment:
There are three behavioral health areas of focus:
(1) Omicron and other COVID variants: ongoing and
potentially severe disruptions to health care, social,
economic (supply chain), and educational systems caused
by the Omicron (and potentially other) variant(s).
(2) Children, youth, and young adults: concerning behavioral
health trends for children, youth, and young adults.
(3) Collective grief and loss: not just related to the loss of
individuals, but social and systemic losses as well.
How do we reconcile the three areas of focus above with the three lines in the graph? Are the people in the top yellow line experiencing collective grief and loss? Is it just a matter of degree across the three lines, depending on how much people have lost?
While wondering about this, I came across this article: How Epidemics End. I was surprised to learn that this article was published two thousand years ago in June of 2020. Vaccines weren’t even available at that time. (It’s hard for me to believe that it was only just over a year ago that I received my second Covid vaccination.) The tag line summarizes a major point in article: “History shows that outbreaks often have murky outcomes—including simply being forgotten about, or dismissed as someone else’s problem.”
Of course pandemics don’t just abruptly end. The authors note that “epidemics are not merely biological phenomena. They are inevitably framed and shaped by our social responses to them, from beginning to end”. They then describe societal reactions to the 1918 flu pandemic, the 2002 SARS epidemic, and the adoption of the polio vaccine. There is no “singular endpoint”; rather, epidemics end:
- when there is “widespread acceptance of a newly endemic state” (like HIV)
- “not when biological transmission has ended… but rather when, in the attention of the general public and in the judgment of certain media and political elites who shape that attention, the disease ceases to be newsworthy” (like polio)
- when the new disease in question emerges abruptly, rather than gradually (like Legionella and tuberculosis)
In forecasting the end of the Covid pandemic, they comment:
At their best, epidemic endings are a form of relief for the mainstream “we” that can pick up the pieces and reconstitute a normal life. At their worst, epidemic endings are a form of collective amnesia, transmuting the disease that remains into merely someone else’s problem.
That brings me back to the third line, the lowest line, in the graph above. It is not with pride that I recognize that I, along with many of my colleagues, are following the course of the lowest line. It also brings me no satisfaction to acknowledge that the Covid pandemic will likely end for the majority of people in the US before it ends for those of us who work in and use safety net programs, such as emergency departments, homeless shelters, and immigrant and refugee clinics. (When I consider the consequences for other nations, the weight of sadness feels great: There are many people around the world who want to receive a vaccine, but still have not gotten their first dose. The pandemic will also continue for them after it has ended for many others.)
Back in December 2020, I counseled myself:
For those of us in the third line, it has become more difficult to answer either question with confidence.
One reply on “The Third Line.”
[…] month, I finally embraced “that the Covid pandemic will likely end for the majority of people in the US before it ends for thos…“. And only in the past week did I finally recognize that these past epidemics and pandemics […]