Public Health Politics 101

1.    How did Dr. Shah present the numbers, but also the story?  Was he relatable?

When Dr. Shah begins his testimony, he lets the audience know that he is speaking from first hand experience (both as a responder and a survivor). This helps to build credibility for what he is going to say next, as he is speaking about something he knows personally. He also talks about a concrete event that is recent (the Texas winter storms) and ties it back to larger issues (climate change) to explain why addressing the immediate aftermath only gets us out of the current emergency situation, but does nothing to prevent or prepare us for future events.

Additionally, his framing of wanting to work towards solutions rather than focus on the problems is an energizing take for the listener - they know they are going to be presented with ideas on how to fix the situation. He neatly outlines his solutions as three main points, and also explains the overall concept of why we need to support public health with a football metaphor (with the healthcare system as the quarterback and public health as the offensive line) to make the idea more tangible to the general population. 

 

In the press release, the most compelling point was stating that less than 0.5% percent of the current GDP goes to public health spending. Even if the government was to double it as he suggests to 1%, it doesn't feel unreasonable because it is such a small number (especially in the face of what the country is undergoing and the impact it is having on day-to-day life).

2.    Did he “frame” his message according to Framework Theory, Framing Using Deep Metaphors, or Key Underlying Values?  If so, how?  If not, how could he have to make his testimony stronger?
One notable metaphor Dr. Shah used was one that Amy mentioned above-- the football comparison, with the public health workforce being compared to the often overlooked offensive line. This stood out to me, not only because it made sense, but because I'm a football fan and understand the importance of the offensive line to the overall team and some of the more "noteworthy" players, like the quarterback and running back. I would say much like in football, if you have a weak offensive line, your quarterback will struggle to produce any type of offense (and put up points), even if he is a veteran/pro. Thinking about it from a literal standpoint: Putting a great leader on top of a shaky platform isn't going to end well; the platform will inevitably collapse. You need a strong platform (in this case, infrastructure in public health) to create a strong base for all your work moving forward.

I agree with Amy about liking the metaphor to make the concept more tangible to the reader, but to make his argument stronger, he could have integrated the metaphor more throughout his speech.

One part I found a little confusing was his use of "numbers" to explain multiple different points. He physically used his fingers to count off his points, like "1, 2, 3..." but the number 1 point changed from topic to topic. It would be much more powerful (and easier to follow) if the numbered points were consistent and reiterated throughout the speech.

4.    In the press release specifically, what was most compelling?  What specifically stood out to grab interest?
The statement that grabbed my attention the most was that we can't just fill lost positions, but we have to thoughtfully expand to address the changing needs related to the pandemic. This point, tied with Dr. Shah's quote about having not only a strong workforce, but a competent one, spoke to me. At my agency, I feel like some programs just "fill roles", instead of really thinking about the long-term changes that should be considered about these roles and looking outside the box when it comes to hiring. These same programs tend to hire within the same circle of people (same universities, same connections, etc.) and the candidates are far from competent in the long run.