In modern times, it is difficult to overemphasize the importance of timely government response to epidemiological situations. However, specific decisions are made to counteract a hazardous situation when several essential points are reached, including full medical confirmation. This confirmation usually includes not only epidemiological data but also data from studies and tests confirming the danger of the situation. The need for causal evidence can be either accepted or rejected because each case must be examined carefully and separately. However, if causality is clearly defined, it is possible to predict hypothetical scenarios for different situations.
Discussions of causality in epidemiology include a division into two main poles – necessary and sufficient causes. A necessary cause is one without which an effect cannot be achieved, while a sufficient cause is one in which an effect must occur. The concept of necessary causes is closely related to the microbial theory of disease, that is, the explanation of each disease by a specific infectious agent. Today, however, many diseases can be categorized as having neither necessary nor sufficient causes (Deener et al., 2018). An example of such diseases is cancer or disorders of cardiovascular cause.
On this basis, it can be restated that it is not enough to have only one epidemiological study with one source – in order to form a conclusion or a policy decision, it is also necessary to have a cause confirmed by the study.
An example of a situation of incorrect political decisions in our time with epidemiological assumptions is the current attitude of the population to the influenza virus. With an average mortality rate higher than that of COVID-19, no unique solutions have been made for years, especially considering the global panic and lockdowns during the coronavirus (Macha & McDonough, 2012). The importance of regular flu vaccination is not conveyed to the public, given the constant change in the flu strain. At the same time, the one-publicized results of the effects of the disease are not disseminated widely in the media or by the authorities, which would be logical. Every year society suffers from flu epidemics, losing many members without even realizing it.
Considering all of the above can be assumed that not only epidemiological claims, research, and experimentally confirmed data are insufficient for political decisions, but there is also some political factor that has nothing to do with medicine. For this reason, it is concluded that political decisions may not be made when a critical need exists, which is unacceptable (Ramanathan et al., 2017). Therefore, the question of causation and the obligation to prove it is fundamental in our time (Macha & McDonough, 2012). With a quicker response to signals from epidemiologists or epidemiological researchers, the government can respond in time to the threat of another possible mass disease.
In conclusion, despite the ongoing debate among medical theorists, confirmation of causality is indeed necessary for proactive action with appropriate epidemiological findings. Sometimes, as it is possible to observe, policy decisions are insufficient or not made at all (Deener et al., 2018). As the fields of epidemiology and risk assessment develop, the use of epidemiological research in risk assessment to inform decisions is likely to increase. Moreover, to convince those policymakers responsible for assessing the situation, it is advisable to provide as much evidence as possible to prove the danger of the situation in a way that is understandable to them and the public.
References
Deener, K. C. K., Sacks, J. D., Kirrane, E. F., Glenn, B. S., Gwinn, M. R., Bateson, T. F., & Burke, T. A. (2018). Epidemiology: A foundation of environmental decision making.Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 28(6), 515-521. Web.
Macha, K., & McDonough, J. (Eds.). (2012). Epidemiology for advanced nursing practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Ramanathan, T., Hulkower, R., Holbrook, J., & Penn, M. (2017). Legal epidemiology: The science of law.The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45(1_suppl), 69-72. Web.