As semi-retired public health epidemiologist I find your discussion of the distinctions between individual health and population and public health to be informative and relevant, and I concur with your concerns about MAHA.
This kind of scicomm is sorely needed. I do want to make two minor points. The first is that the word generally used for specific groups within a population, is subpopulation. These subpopulations might be those formed by what some sociologists have called “invidious distinctions,“ like race class, and gender. It’s extremely important to note how these distinctions affect health.
The second is that I had a colleague at a major public university who was doing very effective education of public health undergraduates in using new media to communicate with subpopulations. She did not get tenure. Generally speaking, these “invidious distinctions” work against academic promotion. In this case, effective science communication of a whole cohort of students was frustrated.
But I have always felt that there were deep affinities between sociology and public health, precisely because both have this systemic thinking. that is, but one reason I am glad for this post. I live in Maine, and our CDC chief has gone on to be number two at the US CDC (for now). I do remember a podcast in which he said to our Senator Angus King, that public health was biology plus sociology.
As semi-retired public health epidemiologist I find your discussion of the distinctions between individual health and population and public health to be informative and relevant, and I concur with your concerns about MAHA.
Thanks, Mark, appreciate your comment.
This kind of scicomm is sorely needed. I do want to make two minor points. The first is that the word generally used for specific groups within a population, is subpopulation. These subpopulations might be those formed by what some sociologists have called “invidious distinctions,“ like race class, and gender. It’s extremely important to note how these distinctions affect health.
The second is that I had a colleague at a major public university who was doing very effective education of public health undergraduates in using new media to communicate with subpopulations. She did not get tenure. Generally speaking, these “invidious distinctions” work against academic promotion. In this case, effective science communication of a whole cohort of students was frustrated.
But I have always felt that there were deep affinities between sociology and public health, precisely because both have this systemic thinking. that is, but one reason I am glad for this post. I live in Maine, and our CDC chief has gone on to be number two at the US CDC (for now). I do remember a podcast in which he said to our Senator Angus King, that public health was biology plus sociology.