The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19

Abstract

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID‐19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories—the ‘lethal threat’ story, followed by the ‘economic threat’ story, and finally the ‘vaccine miracle’ story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management—arising from holding on to single storylines—showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of ‘wicked’ problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

Perspectives of (/memorandum for) systems thinking on COVID‐19 pandemic and pathology

“…Attempts to depict the entire extent of the disease, which build on the more than 2 years’ experience available, are rather underrepresented. 4 , 5 Statistics regarding the numbers of infected or deceased individuals are dominating the analysis, but the reported incidence numbers fluctuate and have a questionable precision and validity. Other reports describe molecular aspects of the viral infection, but mutations of the virus constantly change the picture.…”

“…The consecutive plurality of essentially unidimensional research in the various research fields associated with the pandemic could be integrated into a multi‐dimensional, comprehensive, coherent, abstract but understandable, high‐level conceptual framework. 5 , 12 …”

“…Most reports on new insights into COVID‐19 focus on selected and pertinent details. Attempts to depict the entire extent of the disease, which build on the more than 2 years’ experience available, are rather underrepresented 4,5 . Statistics regarding the numbers of infected or deceased individuals are dominating the analysis, but the reported incidence numbers fluctuate and have a questionable precision and validity.…”

Surfing Corona waves – instead of breaking them: Rethinking the role of natural immunity in COVID-19 policy

“…Implicitly, some governments (like China) seemed to strive for elimination of the epidemic (eradication of a zoonosis being next to impossible), others (like Brazil or the USA) depicted it 'like a bad flu' and triedat least for a given periodto basically ignore it. 4 On the other hand, activities to control the pandemic showed an increasing degree of conformity across countries, the main pillars being initially 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' (NPIs) including lockdown measures, travel restrictions and face mask mandates, but soon, incorporated mass vaccination of the population in order 'to break the waves' (peaks of the epidemic in terms of hospitalisations and deaths, the main acknowledged policy objectives in most countries).…”

Complexity sciences: Applied philosophy to solve real‐world wicked problems

“…The six papers [2][3][4][5][6][7] referred to in this philosophy theme edition of the journal describe complex problems, however, most do so only implicitly (Table 2). If the aim of philosophical discourse is to clarify and enlighten, would it not be more useful and powerful to do so explicitly?…”