After COVID, we don’t “get back to normal.” Instead, we seek a fitness formula that values prevention and recognizes that any policy is a fitness policy.
We want to make sure we treat all the points they can produce and maintain fitness, not just help other people once they’re sick. To address the fitness of the population in the most productive way imaginable is to balance preventive and curative measures, equitable access to social services, policies that emphasize the social determinants of fitness and the abandonment of the “fitness care system”.
How normal? Healing fitness care
The healing technique for physical care focuses on curing and treating an individual once they have been diagnosed with the disease. The Canadian Health Act strictly defines “fitness” and only ensures that “medically necessary” are provided.
In addition to being reactive, there is no company definition of what constitutes a medically binding service, and what is considered medically mandatory would possibly replace depending on the context in which it is provided. Services that are considered medically non-mandatory include prescription drugs, optometry, dental care and physical therapy, among others. The social determinants of health, in addition to housing, the security of the source of income and a sufficiently good social network, are even extra from the medically obligatory definition.
With the healing technique, it is to have a population that goes well, since that has never been the purpose of the system. There is also the argument that the healing technique for fitness care does more harm than good, as evidenced by medical errors, the negative interactions between harm and medicine, and the medicalization of everyday experiences.
The healing technique focuses on the disease in the individual, rather than on the social facets and the rapid points that would possibly have an effect on the disease. Now, with COVID-19, there is no cure for the disease and, therefore, the curative technique is already insufficient.
Where it has failed
The recommendation given to the Canadian public as the most productive way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to stay at home as much as you can imagine and wash your hands frequently. While this might seem like a smart recommendation, you can’t practice with all Canadians in the same way.
Canadians are told to stay home as long as possible. But what if they don’t have a house? Are you looking for luck in a homeless shelter, where overcrowding is inevitable? While at first glance it might seem like a housing policy factor, a labor policy factor, or an economic policy factor, it is a public adequacy policy factor.
The privilege of owning a home is emphasized through the federal government, which has allowed loan bills to be deferred for eligible homeowners when a similar policy has not been established to defer rental bills. Instead, this resolution is left to individual homeowners and has a negative effect on those with a lower socio-economic status.
In addition, not all Canadians should have access to clean water, as 61 Aboriginal communities nationwide are subject to warning notices. Clearly, access to social determinants of fitness is not distributed lightly.
At the federal level, short-term monetary measures have been put in place to keep Canadians afloat, such as the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). With more than 3 million unworked Canadians, COVID-19 has highlighted the precarious lives of many Canadians.
While such economic efforts would be potentially useful today, they are only transitional responses that are unlikely to have a lasting effect on social determinants of fitness. Like the healing fitness system, they are reactive and non-proactive; curative, non-preventive. This means that many of the points contributing to the spread of COVID-19 cannot be well controlled because there is no good enough social safety net.
Creating a new normal
When economic and fitness systems are in disarray, there is no better time to rebuild from behind. There is no doubt that a preventive health care technique would not only lead a more in-form and fairer population to social services, but would also charge less than our existing long-term system.
Since most of GDP is spent on fitness care, transferring cash to other policy spaces that influence social determinants of fitness will require primary restructuring. Because we have a federal health care system, replacement occurs slowly and large-scale reform rarely occurs. This is demonstrated through the lack of a national pharmaceutical care program, an intellectual aptitude strategy and a national home care program in Canada, although all have been discussed in recent decades.
In reaction to COVID-19, all Canadian provinces declared a state of emergency, so it was not considered mandatory through the federal government to invoke the Emergency Act. However, invoking the law would possibly have been an opportune time to broaden the definition of medically binding and adopt radical fitness reform measures, such as national fitness programmes, without pushing the provinces back.
Health policy should be comprehensive and take into account bidirectional dating between upstream and downstream measures, and should be analyzed in the context of social determinants of health, adding gender, race, schooling. socioeconomic factors.