The presentation on social distancing and impacts on social isolation discusses the policy recommendation that the households with four individuals or less must have the option to associate with another particular household once every week. It must be a similar household that they are interfacing with every week and not surpass a total of eight people. They further state that people who are participating in visiting households must be committed to social and physical distancing rules. For this policy, it will be difficult to authorize and monitor whether individuals are submitting to the guidelines or if they are going to different houses; it puts a great deal of trust in residents to comply with the arrangement. Currently, the social distance measures that were taken place have been misused and neglected by several citizens simply because they underestimated the severity of the pandemic. This policy to broaden social distance measures can be misused because there could be a possibility that citizens would take advantage of less prohibitive measures. There is also a possibility for vulnerable, racialized, and low incomes households to come in contact with law enforcement and leading to over monitoring social distance measures on groups such as racialized groups and low-income areas. For the assigned article for this presentation, Santini, Jose, Cornwell, Koyanag, Nielsen, Hinrichsen, & Koushede (2020) discuss the consequences of social isolation regarding mental health and how social networks are key structures for functioning and social disconnectedness. From a more extensive point of view, the article suggests procedures intended to fundamentally increase opportunities for social connectedness required but when social distancing measures are taken place, this would lead to limited opportunities for in-person meetings. The limitations of this article are that it does not discuss any implications of social isolation during a global pandemic and the importance of balancing public safety with mental health. Through social distancing measures, I believe that in a state of a pandemic, comprehensive strategies should give high priority to addressing issues and mental health in the media and helplines should be accessible. Douglas, Katikireddi, Taulbut, McKee, & McCartney, (2020) suggests that while keeping up with social distancing measures. In the long term, social isolation is related to an expansion in mortality. Individuals who are financially unstable or weak in physical or psychological well-being are at higher risk. There should be access to online and phone support and it should be accommodated for marginalized and vulnerable groups, particularly those living alone. These policy decisions made currently will shape the future economy in manners that could either improve or harm supportability, wellbeing, and health inequalities. This will include choices about which parts to organize for help, regardless of whether to financially support business or laborers and how to fund these costs. To ensure citizen’s wellbeing it will be fundamental to implement policies that include the input of diverse populations of what should be implemented and have an equitable approach. The policy recommendation also neglects seniors to be considered, although this is a vulnerable population and contracting COVID-19 is high, there should be accommodations for seniors as well in a part of their policy. Due to this fact, it is important to include and fund social work and community support services for vulnerable families and seniors. The presentation mentions that the cons of the policy are also portrayed that everyone has a household so it leaves out the homeless population.
The presentation on healthcare surveillance recommends a plan to send Covid-19 testing kits including instructions to every household every month. After taking these tests, they suggest that the results should be dropped off at the nearest clinics and there will be monthly fines for any missing tests. For this policy recommendation, I agree that it will limit the spread of Covid-19 risks among citizens in society, however, it imposes a major privacy violation due to records of people’s movements and personal information being tracked by government systems. Throughout the history of surveillance, there has been a negative impact among vulnerable groups by excessive control through macro-level institutions and forms assumptions by stereotyping particular groups. Since media is the most prominent source of normalizing surveillance because of fear instilled in people, it also creates discourse as people are willing to sacrifice their privacy for “safety”. In the assigned reading for this presentation, Declich and Carter (1994) indicates acceptability mirrors the willingness to find individuals and organizations stop participate in the framework. The agreeableness of a framework relies upon the apparent general wellbeing significance of the occasion under observation, the acknowledgment of the contribution of people to the framework, and how much time is expected to make the reports. Through global situations like the pandemic, warfare and violent events, this enables media to accentuate issues to the extreme to impose fear and uncertainty in the audience. Through this, it creates the normalization of surveillance to gain power over the individual’s data and communication in trade for protection and security. This also targets marginalized and racialized groups considering that the history of healthcare also has bias and medical models that enforce oppressive notions. There is a complex relationship between defending the rights of citizens to privacy and policies under conditions of governmens surveillance guidelines. Although this policy recommendations percieves it to protect society, another perspective that is being neglected is on the consequences in terms of infringement and liberty of individuals rights. (Lyon 2001) implies that historical records of surveillance used by the on extreme levels that it threatens democracy and systems gains power through social control. He states that surveillance is two-sided, and the advantages of right distinguishing proof, screening, checking, proper characterization, and different assignments related to it must be recognized. Simultaneously dangers and perils are consistently present in enormous scope frameworks and force defiles (Lyon 1). I agree that data is necessary to gather information to develop knowledge on a particular issue and to build a better understanding, which is why surveillance is crucial in ways that it would not harm individual liberties or form assumptions. In other ways, surveillance could be harmful due to policing bodies and non consential information that might be distributed. Another limitation for having testing kits is that, the cost and the accessibility must be considered as many populations may not have access to these kits or may be neglected such as the homeless population. Furthermore, these tests may portray inaccurate results and the procedure of this test is highly uncomfortable which may lead to many individuals who may reject it or may not know how to use these testing kits. Simultaneously, if safe precautions and instructions are not taken by citizens using these testing kits, it may lead to harm for individuals.
In the presentation regarding tracking vulnerable groups during a pandemic, the call for race-based data, I agree that information is gathered to all the more likely comprehend the COVID-19 episodes and what groups of individuals are being influenced the most. In addition, gathering race-based information is a significant advance for making another strong response and it will have the option to target vulnerable groups that are most in danger because of the area and the monetary/financial emergency they will confront. Their policy plan consists of the collection of data that is analyzed with the partnership of community groups. Another factor of the plan is that these questionnaires emphasize confidentiality and provide an opt-out option, also transparent towards why data is being collected. In cases of gathering data information to prove an effective response, I say race-based data is crucial because without following information and the absence of specific individuals, we will never comprehend the genuine thinking behind the outbreak and the effect Covid-19 has on the economy. Through race-based data, it ensures that people experiencing health and social challenges are also involved in shaping the solutions and that power and decision-making are shared. it means that every person at the collective decision making is an active participant with mutual responsibility for achieving results. I also believe race-based data have a history of policing racialized bodies and surveilling individuals for the benefit of oppressive systems. In the article (Rodney & Copeland 2009) indicates that the advantage to the vulnerable populations of gathering such data far exceeds any downsides since the current boundaries don’t give a chance to examine wellbeing inconsistencies completely. However, race-based data raise a concern on the specific way wherein such terms are utilized that may hide or obscure increasingly such as structural and institutionalized issues. In the Covid-19 event, circumstances of Black and Indigenous communities must be considered as there is unequal access to resources and high levels of exclusion when incorporating these communities in policymaking. These terms, which are the most commonly utilized for race classifications in health-related writing, must be reexamined: they are characteristically insufficient for breaking down struggles. Moreover, these terms disregard the historical and political encounters, and class and racial battles of the individuals they designate. They state that “It is important for researchers to have accurate health profiles of groups that historically have endured inequities. For this type of analysis, groupings such as visible minority or racialized groups are inadequate and need further disaggregation by racial/ethnic categories to capture important differences in health outcomes. This disaggregation would give health professionals the tools needed to provide better service to these diverse populations” (Rodney & Copeland 818). Although race-based data is crucial to understand the circumstances of racialized communities, some discourses revolve around the institutionalization of what has been said and what has not been saying. For social change, voices of marginalized also need to be amplified to understand their experiences and to incorporate this in the literature that explains differences and outcomes regarding health. The author also mentions that one of the limitations when gathering data is the stigmatization of particular results that may lead to oppression towards a community. They further discuss that discrimination dependent on race has been recognized as a common explanation behind marginalization in society, yet a significant part of the wellbeing research and the wellbeing framework neglect to cover the components of social exclusion experienced by these vulnerable groups. Although race-based data is effective and important to truly gain insight of the statistics of oppressed populations, another perspective is that many identities can not be narrowed down to a few questions, this makes identity and experiences complex.
The censorship during the pandemic politics of fear and human costs presentation suggests that the policy plan inquires the government to expand CERB for all Canadians who stay qualified for one progressively four-week time span to permit organizations and employees to get ready for coming back to work. Keep offering CERB after this four-week time span to those more than 60 years of age or the individuals who are immunocompromised and stay qualified for the advantage (loss of salary, laid off, and incapable to telecommute). These two gatherings will stay in isolation as they are the most powerless against passing on from COVID. Also, to affirm qualification, people who are immunocompromised must present a note from an authorized clinical expert affirming their condition. As organizations, workplaces, cafés, and retail locations keep on opening up, businesses must give dispensable face masks and gloves for all representatives. The strengths of this policy plan are that it definitely reduces financial worries to the individuals who are attempting to return to work or for the individuals who have lost their employment and are attempting to locate another. Individuals can have a sense of security leaving their homes to go out to shop or go to work, realizing that there will be wellbeing safety measures set up. By expanding CERB one more month it gives organizations and employees relief from their financial distress as they move once again into the workforce. However, their policy has limitations to social exclusions and the fear behind this many social barriers that may distress an individual’s mental state. Fear during a pandemic has tremendous effects on mental health, leading to stress and anxiety related to social relations.
2020-6-26-1593200775