Welcome to the April issue of WonderWell, a newsletter intended to gather the most groundbreaking research and insightful commentaries in evidence-based medicine, wellness, healthcare leadership, writing, and innovation to help you live and work in alignment with your purpose and well-being.
**to access all hyperlinks, please subscribe**
Some things that had me wondering this month:
1. COVID and…
~Vaccine hesitancy. In December I wrote about a hypothesis on scarcity and social proof about potentially overcoming vaccine hesitancy. Recently the WSJ published data on vaccine hesitancy, which appears to be going down on several states — could it be secondary to scarcity and social proof? And what *might* it mean for vaccine hesitancy in general?
~The politics behind pandemics. This, from the New Yorker is an excellent review of Baylor Medicine’s Dr. Peter Hoetz latest book, Preventing the Next Pandemic, and a great reflection on a remarkable career in infectious diseases/global health.
~Design. COVID has impacted the design world in unique way, in the New York Times .
2. Podcasts to listen to:
The On Being podcast is a favorite. Recently host Krista Tippett interviewed psychologist Christine Ryntab about how our mental health has been affected by the pandemic.
Part 1 (covers mastery vs success) and Part 2 (covers a beautiful term called “aesthetic force”) where Brene Brown, for her Daring Leadership podast, interviews Harvard’s Dr Sarah Lewis. It might be the best set of interviews I’ve listened to in years. It will nourish you and inspire you (and i’m currently listening to Lewis’ gorgeous book The Rise, on audiobook).
I’ve been listening to poet and musician Morgan Harper Nichols daily for the last 2 weeks. Her 3-12 min episodes are beautiful reflections which leave you with a question. Nichols’ voice alone is incredible, and her instagram account covers her artwork as well. She’s a rising star to watch.
Some of my recent favorites have been on trusting despite the uncertainty, on our purpose (with lovely) a river analogy, and 7 phrases to help with future worries.
3.On…forecasting and expertise
This is from the archives of the Atlantic, by the incredible David Epstein (his book Range is a must-read). Here, citing Philip Tetlock’s work, he calls into question ‘expertise’ — indeed it must be a balance. We need experts to guide us, but non-experts help us identify blind-spots. This is a topic I’ve been thinking about a LOT with the pandemic. I’m now left thinking it’s more of an ‘amplification problem.’ Perhaps, with COVID, given the amount of uncertainty and the fast-moving nature of science, the media tends to rely on experts to self-identify. This then leads to many ‘non-experts’ (confident but incompetent, at least as it relates to medicine and public health), who *should* be part of the discussion, but shouldn’t be amplified, get amplified the media.
Recently an economist at Brown received immense criticism (here, here , here, and here, but really — there were lots of important points made) for an article about childhood COVID transmission. It was inaccurate and simply unwise, as many physicians and epidemiologists identified, but it likely wasn’t intentionally so. The simplest explanation: economists and epidemiologists look at data and value various factors *differently.* As an economist, her views could add to the discussion — it may just be that they should not have been amplified in that fashion, as it drowned out the current recommendations and expert forecasts. It was quickly debunked but the harm cannot be underestimated. Reporters, and others without expertise but who write about a subject, are expected to incorporate expertise into their pieces, in order to report out an issue fairly and accurately. It’s possible that this economist may have avoided the controversy by interviewing epidemiologists in a “reported op-ed” (one that isn’t solely her opinion), as opposed to writing an op-ed from her point of view as, effectively, a non-expert in public health. Perhaps an article on the economic impacts of COVID or how an economist may *think* through the challenge of lockdowns would have been more appropriate.
We must amplify experts who are truly able to comment on the pandemic and make recommendations, and not simply allow the loudest voices (in the room or on Twitter) to prevail. This, ultimately, causes harm to public understanding, and influences behavior in a way that ultimately negatively impacts how the pandemic is handled. Editors and producers, therefore, must also be equally discerning when commissioning op-eds from academics, and ensure their expertise lines up with the subject matter.
4.Sound (and wise) reflections
~A former incarcerated man reflects on solitary confinement — which he suffered through for 18 years — in NYTOpinion
~The challenge of bullying in healthcare, in the Financial Post
~The role of trauma in gun violence, in the NYTOpinion
~There were many great pieces about anti-asian violence. This Q+A in the New Yorker and this op-ed by National Book Award winner, Charles Yu, in the LATimes are worth a read
~From the LATimes, the things migrants carried and dropped on their trek across the border for a better life
~The incomparable Dr Eric Topol, for the WSJ, on how science accelerated over the last 13 months
~The plight of child caregivers, in the LATimes
~In the NYT, the incredible life of one of my favorite writers as a child — Beverley Cleary
~One of the best personal essays I’ve read in months, in the Washington Post, about medical error, second opinions, and the limits of medical ‘expertise’
6.Best tweet of the month goes to…
A Three-WAY tie:
This thread is inspiring (it’s worth reading in its entirety).
We think strength is self-sufficiency— achievement without reliance on others. We think that if someone else gains, we lose. But intertwined, we all go further. This is the secret of Silicon Valley. Help others, ask for help, and collective strength multiplies.
Reflecting on these statements from 2 good friends in academic medicine this week: 1. “There HAS to be a consequence between nothing and professional death.” 2. “Healing HAS to include restorative justice–which begins with accountability.” Yeah. That part.
In My Own Words…
This was a month with lots of writing, and the next few weeks will be dedicated to my book revisions (due in 3 wks!). For Medium‘s Coronavirus vertical, I wrote a primer about the AstraZeneca vaccine, clots, and concerns about causality. For Elemental, I examined the role of prayer in healing, inspired by the story of Molly (that many of us were inspired by in February). Last, for Wired I tackled an issue that has been on my mind for many weeks: the puzzle of pandemic prognostication (and why some see things through an optimistic lens, whereas others are more concerned) — I make mention of epistemic trust and the issue I discuss above (point #3).
Also, a personal one from the archive (2017), about my grandfather, who has been on my mind late, in Hektoen International.
My time in Vancouver is soon coming to an end (as, sadly, variants are taking hold). It has been such an incredible place, with so much natural beauty, to spend time in over the last 8 months.
Have a healthy, joyful, month,
Amitha Kalaichandran, M.D., M.H.S.