Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lockdown chapter

General updates
Summary of 1st meeting (20.11.2020) :


 * We considered several options and decided to investigate the interdisciplinary conflict in evidence/truth behind the decision of whether to impose a lockdown or not.
 * We’ve identified Economics, Statistics, Public Health, Politics, International Relations, Law, Psychology, and Sociology as potential disciplines for our further research.
 * We saw a potential problem with lack of published resources on the topic due to its recency, but the preliminary research showed availability of credible information-- Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of 2nd meeting (27.11.2020) :
 * Each of us conducted some preliminary research to verify whether we can find sufficient valid and reviewed resources to begin writing on this topic. Fortunately, we found a good amount of them so we decided to go ahead with the topic of lockdown.
 * We narrowed down the title of our chapter to a more specific title - “evidence in assessment methodologies for the effectiveness of the lockdown.” This included discussions on issues of truth and evidence - which one would be more suitable. We ultimately unanimously decided to choose Evidence as this issue would allow us to provide clear and coherent arguments in a restricted word count.
 * We divided the research for certain disciplines among ourselves. After writing about the lockdown from the perspectives of our allotted disciplines, we will meet again to identify and write about the tensions between each of them together. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the 3rd meeting (06.12.2020):
 * Discussed our findings regarding the evidence in the three chosen disciplines.
 * Compared the types of evidence used: qualitative (Political Science) vs quantitative (more in Economics and Public Health )
 * Identified and discussed general trends and how they came into conflict with one another (Economics: against the strict lockdown,and more in favor of the implementation of various mitigation strategies generally negative effect; Public Health and Political Science: in support of the lockdown, mainly positive effect ( to different extents ))
 * Set objectives and outlined next steps: each group member researches and evaluates how the evidence presented by different disciplines creates conflict( Economics vs Political Science, Public Health vs Economics, Public Health vs Political Science )--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the 4th meeting (09.12.2020):
 * Updated each other on the status of our individual paragraphs of each discipline and finalised them
 * After spending the last 3 days researching, had a major discussion on the conflicts between each discipline and identified them appropriately
 * Attempted to disentangle evidence and truth during the evaluation part of the chapter
 * Now, everyone has to add their contributions to the introduction and finalise that. After, count the number of words left and begin writing the conflict paragraph together --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of 5th meeting (13.12.2020): --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Went through the whole chapter, made suggestions concerning each other’s contributions and the page as a whole.
 * Edited some paragraphs collectively in the Google document to make them more concise and clear
 * Discussed the examples of conflict in evidence that we mentioned earlier in the WhatsApp chat and the discussion page and finalised the structure of the conflict in evidence paragraph
 * Discussed the format, references, the credibility of sources and how to improve our page based on the individual feedback we received on our sandboxes

We used a Google document and a WhatsApp chat a lot from the first weeks of this assignment due to their functionality, (color-coding, proposing edits, edits in real time) which helped us propose changes to each other’s contributions with more clarity than the discussion page. It also allowed us to discuss the proposed changes instead of just making them directly and share the resources we found useful for the development of this project --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi! This is the draft of a few introductory sentences I came up with, please feel free to propose corrections, changes, and any suggestions

"This chapter investigates the nature of interdisciplinary evidence on which the contested measures of containment of the coronavirus pandemic are based. It notes the role of methodological differences and … in the conflict concerning the necessity of lockdown.

Lockdown (as used here) is defined as a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and the use of public spaces. When the pandemic started, a debate concerning the correct response started alongside it and was mainly centred around mitigation and suppression approaches. Figure 1 (- it is a function that relates lives saved and protection of incomes) demonstrates the widespread view that a lockdown is a trade-off between the economic costs and lives lost, which naturally leads to a debate centered on the validity of economic and medical evidence." – it may be too economics centered explanation

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is my version of the introduction (where I have just made edits and added a few phrases):

"This chapter investigates the evidences disciplines use to individually attempt to determine the effectiveness of containment measures, specifically lockdowns, for the coronavirus pandemic. It explores the role of methodological differences as well as short-term and long-term perspectives in the conflict concerning the necessity of a lockdown.

Lockdown is defined here as 'a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces'. When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the correct economic, political and public health response started alongside. As this lead to varying responses by different countries, some effective and some worsening the situation, it is important to demonstrate that an interdisciplinary approach would be the most suitable method for determining whether mitigation approaches or suppression approaches will be the most effective."

So, the reason why I removed your last paragraph (with the figure) is because I think it would be a better addition to the conflict paragraph instead of this. In the introduction, we just want to explain our intention for writing this chapter -- we have the rest of the chapter to justify these claims. Tell me what you think! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I totally agree that the last paragraph should be moved. I just wanted to make a few little corrections to the introduction you proposed but somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing, I'm sorry. So here is the paragraph I came up with, I changed the structure we both used before and tried to cut it down:

"When the coronavirus pandemic hit, a debate about the correct response started alongside. This chapter investigates the evidence individual disciplines rely on in attempts to determine the effectiveness of specific virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, and the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it. Lockdown is defined here as a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces. As this debate has influenced the actual state policies, of varying degrees of success, it is important to understand the potential flaws in the arguments of different sides, their causes and to demonstrate that an interdisciplinary approach would be the most suitable method for determining the most thought-through measures."

I hope I didn't misunderstand the key changes you've proposed. Please feel free to change it! --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, i have changed the wording a little bit, but i agree with all of the points you have outlined in the introduction "This chapter investigates the evidence different disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of containment measures, specifically lockdowns, for the coronavirus pandemic. It explores the role of methodological differences as well as short-term and long-term perspectives in the conflict concerning the necessity of a lockdown.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces" When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the convenient economic, political and public health response started as a consequence. Leading to various international reactions, some improving and others worsening the situation, it is important to acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as a method for determining whether mitigation approaches or suppression approaches will be the most effective."--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

this is a better version, i have combined some of the previous suggestions, what do you think ?

When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the convenient economic, political and public health response started as a consequence.This chapter investigates the evidence various disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, as well as the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces" Leading to various reactions and implementation of a number of policies on different levels, achieving various degrees of success, it is important to highlight the downsides of different procedures and acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as the method for determining the nature of the most effective measures to be taken: mitigation or suppression.--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd substitute "convenient" in the first sentence by "optimal". And I think the sentence after the lockdown definition needs to be clearer, maybe it can be split into two. --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you think about this variant:

When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the optimal economic, political and public health response started as a consequence.This chapter investigates the evidence various disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, as well as the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces". Consequently, as a result of various reactions to the crisis across the globe, a number of policies have been implemented on different levels, achieving various degrees of success. Hence, it is important to highlight the downsides of different procedures and acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as the method for determining the nature of the most effective measures to be taken: mitigation or suppression.--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guys! I just made some grammatical edits to the introduction - just so that what we are saying is crystal clear. Hope its okay! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
This is the economics methodology section draft I've constructed,

"In economics, lockdown tends to be seen as a trade-off between the economic costs and lives lost. Many papers attempt to represent the problem as a cost-benefit analysis and construct quantitative models that either justify the costs of lockdown or not. Economic advice is based on abstracted, generalised models and functions that rely on statistics, quantitative data, assumptions, estimates and other models, theories, and forecasts. Those models tend to lack recognition of psychological factors, of some quantitatively unmeasurable uncertainty and many aspects of the complex interdependence of society. Furthermore, most healthcare economics models rely on epidemiological models which also have some degree of abstraction and error. Both economic and epidemiological models have to be based on limited data obtained by observation rather than controlled randomized trials and thus may be insufficiently reliable."

I may add a few examples related to the nature of economic evidence that may have been involved in the conflict surrounding lockdown decisions. But I think it can be more convenient to discuss our findings and then choose which of these or other examples I found should be included in our page. I found a lot of papers that look at very different aspects of the problem and I think we should decide on which aspect we want to focus on to comply with the word limit.

But generally, as a result of the economics approach and methodology, some economics papers propose a mitigation strategy instead of a suppression strategy - lockdown.

Some economic evidence may not take all the complex context into consideration, for example certain authors present the change in GDP between February and April as an evidence of detrimental consequences of lockdown. However economic research with a different methodology suggested that only 7% of the negative growth of economic activity was due to legal restrictions while 60% was caused by the reaction of people to the virus and anticipated crisis.

Most cost-benefit analysis would have to rely on estimated cost of a human life which has to be quantified and different approaches to that exist. For example economists see a 10 week lockdown as feasible only if a human life is valued at over 10m£ and when that number is compared to cost of life in other scenarios, it looks totally illogical to implement such a lockdown. In the first months of the pandemic, economic models were based on typical frameworks and the kind of data that was used in similar economic problems but not necessarily similar situations in the past. So all the classical concerns about economic evidence are applicable to some early papers. Later some other perspectives, and thus evidence, were recognised and models became more accurate but still not perfect and the measures they recommend may not be practically possible or useful. So many economists propose targeted measures rather than a lockdown, however some recognise the validity of strict short-term restrictions in the long term perspective. From what I understood people in health sciences insist that it’s practically difficult and frequently impossible to contain the disease by targeted measures, relying on the evidence they consider but the economists don't?

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I just read through your paragraph and I think, in terms of content, it is great! Just a few suggestions: a) refrain from using more than one specific example while explaining a claim you're making; as discussed in the call, we're making paragraphs on each discipline mostly non-specific so they give an overall view of the situation from their perspective and state the major and most prominent trends observed, b) try to follow the structure used by the Political Science and Public Health disciplines used, just for uniformity and clarity purposes, c) I don't understand the meaning of mitigation and suppression strategy so maybe you could define the terms?, d) try to draw a clear, overall conclusion by the discipline. Hope I am not overstepping and feel free to do as much as you feel comfortable with. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the feedback! I decided to omit all the specific examples, and use them only if they illustrate an interdisciplinary conflict in evidence in the Conflict in Evidence section, according to the structure proposed in the Google document. I tried to make the sentence about mitigation and suppression strategies clearer, hope it's better now. And I also tried to write a more concise conclusion but I may add more to it --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Do you think I can add a picture (a graph) from a paper and cite it or should I try to find something similar in Wikimedia? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I am not sure but I will ask our module leader and get back to you on that. Moreover, I just read the latest version of the Economics paragraph on the main page and I have a few suggestions that could really clarify what you have already written:

Hope these make sense! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) mention the focus of economic research, in regards to lockdown measures, more clearly (even if it seems obvious) and of course, attach a reference to that
 * 2) rearrange a couple sentences and make a few grammatical edits, as mentioned in the Google Document
 * 3) move the sentence talking about "psychological factors" to the conflict paragraph, as it will make more sense there
 * Thank you! I'll try to do these things

I wanted to discuss a couple of other concerns, I've checked the sources I'm referencing and I think they are of good quality, but one government publication has no authors, do you think it may be an issue? It is an official document and the data I take from it concerns the methodology they describe rather than findings that may have some bias. Another paper that I found useful is a literature review that is not peer-reviewed due to its recency. But it mentions different perspectives and many papers with opposing views that are frequently referenced and considered reliable in other publications I've come across. Do you think I should keep these sources? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you should keep both of those references. The first one is a government publication -- therefore it can definitely be trusted as governments (to the best of my knowledge) don't release unverified information. Secondly, although the literature review is not peer-reviewed, I think its okay to use because literature reviews are anyways subjective in nature and are heavily influenced by the author's perspectives. But in the end, it is your decision. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Usernamee anonymous! I asked our module leader, and he confirmed that yes we can use and put in a picture from a source other than wikimedia, as long as we reference and cite it well and clearly. Hope this helps and let me know if we are still putting an image in. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we shouldn't as it's not really necessary after the changes we've made and I didn't find an ideal image that is open-source. But thank you for the information! --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay! Also, I just realised that I meant that literature reviews are objective in nature even though they are influenced by the author's perspectives. Literature reviews are conducted to re-verify the limitations of previous research conducted, and therefore, it would be a good reference to include. Hope it is more clear now. Sorry for the typo! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Political Science
This is political science draft ( will add a section on global violence as well )

Political scientists tends to conduct research through both qualitative and quantitative approaches data. The focus of its study are actions and attitudes of individuals, groups and institutions on local, national as well international levels. Empirical evidence used in Political Science is constructed by surveys and interviews, case studies as well as fieldwork, ethnographic works and analysis of past events.

For scholars within the domain of Political Science the burning issue in regards to the effectiveness of the lockdown are its impact on the political support and attitudes towards governmental institutions and actors, especially in democracies, as well as shifting patterns of the global political violence.

In terms of political support, main sources of evidence constitute surveys, questionnaires as well as the analysis of past experience of global pandemics and their correlation with public opinion the findings of multiple cross-national surveys have indicated an overall trend of a decline in trust for governments and other political institutions under democratic regimes. However, even though some results show a strong shift towards supporting more authoritarian style decision-making which erodes the democratic image ,others illustrate strong nationwide recognition of governmental actions. Moreover, there is evidence that there is now observable correlation between the imposition of the lockdown and shifts in ideologies. --Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I think, in terms of content, your writing looks good. Just a few thoughts and suggestions -- a) at some places, there are some grammatical mistakes but I can fix that for you so don't worry!, b) I really admire the structure with which you presented your ideas and I attempted to emulate that in my piece, so please let me know if any changes need to be made to that. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I just wanted to say that I felt that the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph are very similar and maybe you could join them together so that it is more concise. I've also sent you some of my ideas concerning this discipline in Whatsapp --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I thought these sources may help you to write about some of the political aspects we've discussed today.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13411.pdf

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4074

As these are quite long papers I've added particular sections that may be of interest to the Google document --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed the paragraph and added some of your recommendations but with several modifications from myself, so feel free to give your opinion and edit something.	--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Public Health
[Here is my paragraph on this discipline. I will add the references when I add this paragraph to the main page directly. Let me know what you guys think!]

Public Health researchers lay a large emphasis on quantitative methods of evidence collection. Their primary focus is the “disease trends and risk factors, outcomes of treatment or public health interventions, functional abilities, patterns of care, and health care costs and use.”

Specifically for pandemics like Covid-19, the most common method used for assessing combative strategies is an ‘intervention and prevention program evaluation,’ which is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This assessment method, outlined by Figure 1, aims to determine the effectiveness of lockdown measures by comparing the change in the indicators in the pre-lockdown months and post-lockdown months.

Majority of the evidence in public health research constitutes models of the number of cases against different factors such as geographical location, age-groups etc. Multiple cross-national and international studies have observed an overall downward trend in the number of cases after physical distancing measures (such as lockdowns) have been implemented, establishing a direct correlation between the two. (cite Lebanon and overall one) However, although India imposed a nationwide lockdown for 68 days, the number of infections increased, albeit a small fraction. This was due to inadequate public health facilities and a general social indifference.

Therefore, as a result of the methods mentioned, public health recommendations evolved during the entirety of the pandemic and still continue to change. However, overall, based on empirical evidence, the public health ministries of multiple countries continue to assert that lockdowns are the most effective preventative measure, especially when coupled with other combative strategies such as test and trace, mandatory quarantines, and effective healthcare. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've read through your contribution again and I think the India example and social indifference may suit our discussion in the conflict paragraph. So they imposed the lockdown guided by the Public Health concerns but didn't consider the ways in which people may react to these measures and how that can undermine their effectiveness (Political Science evidence). Also, I feel that the quotation in the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming, could you explain some of the aspects mentioned there or remove the aspects you don't touch upon further in this chapter?

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! As discussed in the call, I have decided to remove the social indifference phrase, as it doesn't relate to the public health discipline. Also, I edited the quotation as you suggested. Thank you for your suggestions. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict in evidence
So here is that conflict paragraph:

"Evidence in Public Health is limited to short-term impacts of the containment measures on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how such measures may influence society and cause a crisis that can lead to health issues and increased mortality due to poverty, hunger, and other reasons in the long-term. The economic evidence concerns the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science brings in the concerns about the impact of measures on the behavior of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives." --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * HI! I suggest we put a sentence at the beginning, saying that "Overall, the conflicts of evidence among these disciplines seem to arise from their individual limitations.(or something similar ), what do you think ?--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea, Vovkpp! Here is my version of the conflict paragraph:

"Overall, the conflicts of evidence among these disciplines seem to arise from their individual limitations. Two main conflicts have been identified — short-term vs long-term impacts and qualitative vs quantitative methodologies.

Evidence in Public Health is limited to the short-term impact of lockdowns on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how it may influence the economy by exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities and causing a negative growth in GDP, or a recession. Recessions lead to increased unemployment levels and poverty, which can contribute to the worsening of other health conditions which can lead to higher death rates. Therefore, in the long term, lockdowns may indirectly lead to increased mortality rates.

Evidence in Economics considers the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science evaluates the concerns about the impact of measures on the behavior of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives.

Hence, the imposition of a lockdown can be counterintuitive if an interdisciplinary approach is not taken."

Tell me what you guys think. Also, we need to find at least 2 more references to prove the claims made in this paragraph. Also, we need to specify the 'limited quantifiable factors' that we mention here, or give an example. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good additions! Here is my new take on this paragraph and a few suggestions:

“Overall, many conflicts among these disciplines as well as their contested conclusions seem to arise from the limitations of evidence they rely on. The nature of their methodologies makes some disciplines consider short-term impacts rather than long-term ones and take either qualitative or quantitative factors into account but not both. Evidence in Public Health is limited to the short-term impact of lockdowns on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how they may influence the economy by exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities and causing a negative growth in GDP or a recession. Recessions lead to increased unemployment levels and poverty, which can contribute to the worsening of the population health and higher death rates, especially in certain countries. Therefore, in the long term, lockdowns may indirectly lead to increase in mortality rates. Evidence in Economics considers the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science evaluates the concerns about the impact of measures on the behaviour of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts because of, or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives.”

--Here we can talk about the flaws in mitigation strategy some economists propose: test and trace system is necessary for it to work and there is no trace system people are ready to accept (security and freedom concerns, authoritative governments) (PS) and no tests that are sufficiently accurate and readily available in required quantities (HS)?

“Therefore, a higher degree of involvement of perspectives and evidence of different disciplines may lead to fewer dangerous policy experiments and more effective and quick suppression of pandemic.”

--'' Also, we distill these arguments from the papers we reference in the disciplines paragraphs, but maybe it would look better if we add references to them here as well? So that these points are clearly well supported? I'll find something for the limited quantifiable factors, I think I mentioned it in the Economics paragraph'' --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Usernamee anonymous. I agree! I think adding references to this paragraph is very important, as it gives a basis to all the claims and conclusions that we are drawing. I think we have done a good job adding them. Also, you forgot to cite 2 of them, so I cited them. Hope you don't mind. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)