At the End of Emergency: Lessons to Remember in a Post-Pandemic World
Every fortnight, we hand over the blog to one of the Cambridge Shapers for their take on the biggest issues affecting young people in Cambridge and around the globe. Today’s post comes from Kate McNeil, communications lead for the Centre for Science and Policy and the Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research at the University of Cambridge.
At a recent webinar and workshop on prevention co-hosted by the Centre for Science and Policy and public health practitioners, we heard from a variety of experts about how the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted areas of fragility within our health systems. This experience is not unique to the UK. Elsewhere, in Canada, the pandemic brought to light serious problems in some of the country’s long-term care facilities. Meanwhile, in the United States, the pandemic has shone a light on the financial hardships imposed on many by the structure of a healthcare system which too often leaves patients in debt or without affordable access to medical care.
The places where the stress cracks in the system begin to show has varied from one place to the next, but the common underlying feature in all of the above cases has been underlying inequities and inequalities. These problems, and health inequity more broadly, are intimately intertwined with other societal challenges, such as discrimination and barriers to accessing affordable housing, sick pay, and affordable, accessible healthcare.
During the workshop on prevention, public health officials and academics came together to discuss the UK health system in a post-Covid world. We need to do more to protect those most vulnerable, to redress the cracks in our systems that this pandemic has made so glaringly obvious, and to engage in sustained dialogues with those our systems are failing.
Promisingly, this is a message which seems to have gained traction. From a recent United Nations report on inequalities and Building Back Better, to the World Economic Forum’s own Great Reset initiative, it’s clear that policymakers and decision-makers are devoting headspace to how we can create sustainable, equitable long-term solutions to today’s challenges. Community groups, nongovernmental organisations, think tanks, and universities have also been contributing to this set of conversations through advocacy work, research, citizen initiatives, knowledge exchanges, and more.
I am proud to have had the opportunity to contribute to this conversation in my own small ways — through producing a podcast series on science and policymaking which has explored both pandemic responses and pathways to a green recovery; and through my work with Polygeia Global Health Think Tank, where I am leading a team of student researchers who are conducting a systematic review of health inequality impact assessment tools, with the goal of learning more about how we can use these tools more effectively in England following the pandemic.
However, when I think about the future of our plans for a more sustainable, equitable world based on the lessons learnt during this pandemic, I have a concern.
Someday, in the not too distant future (although it still seems terribly far away from where we are now), this pandemic will begin to fade from the headlines. Eventually, with the help of science, contact tracing, vaccines, and effective, thoughtful policymaking, we will reach a new normal. When we get there, and when the news cycle moves on, I worry we might forget about the cracks in our systems and all of the people who have been negatively impacted by this pandemic . I worry that our resolve to devote time and resources to a concerted effort to do better may weaken in the face of competing priorities, new crises, and political cycles.
In 2018–2019, I conducted primary research on the end of emergencies while based at the London School of Economics. After having spent the previous few years hearing from global health stakeholders as part of my work in politics, I had returned to school because I wanted to understand how those who provide aid — particularly medical humanitarian assistance — decide how and when to bring down the curtain and declare an emergency ‘over’. In a world of finite attention spans, and of finite resources, how do we decide what should get the priority? My research showed that donor funding, local politics, organisational identity, crisis protraction, internal goals, organisational identities, and security were some of the factors which influenced when humanitarian organisations decided to move on. While these specific factors may not hold true for other types of decision-makers, the fundamental message underlying these findings is that the end of emergency can be an organisational construction, rather than a fundamental truth. Sometimes, we move on because of how we have set new priorities, rather than because we have fully solved the problems we previously set out to face.
And so, I have an request, which is simply this: When this pandemic has passed, and the headlines have begun to move on, please take a moment — a year from now, two years from now, five years from now — and ask yourself whether we have met the commitments to we have made during this plague year. Have we have fixed the cracks in our system this pandemic has shone a light on and continued to work on addressing the inequities which lay underneath? Are there are people whose lives are still worse off because of the health, economic and social consequences of the pandemic? If so, are we continuing to help them?
Kate McNeil holds an MSc in Health and International Development from the London School of Economics. With experience in politics and legislative affairs, she presently works at the University of Cambridge, where she is the communications lead for the Centre for Science and Policy and the Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research. She is a member of the Cambridge Global Shapers Hub and an Editor with Polygeia Student Global Health Think Tank, where she is presently conducting a systematic review of health inequality impact assessment tools.
All views expressed in this piece are her own and should not be seen as in any way reflecting the views of her employer.
