IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v402y2026ics0277953626004296.html

The impossibility problem: When public health policies require what structural conditions prevent

Author

Listed:
  • Albert, Katelin
  • Padam, Jasmine
  • Gray, Garry C.

Abstract

“Bubbles” were introduced as a nonpharmacological strategy in 2020 COVID-19 public health guidelines, comparable to social distancing measures. Despite the seemingly clear metaphor of bubbles, public communication and guidelines for bubbling across Canada and globally created a context of ambiguity, confusion, and inconsistency. It was up to individual citizens, households, groups, schools, and workplaces to know what a bubble was and how to implement bubbling practices. In spite of its widespread adoption as a pandemic intervention, little is known about how the public made sense of this guideline and how they attempted to follow this guideline in practice. Drawing on data from 39 semi-structured qualitative interviews with people in British Columbia Canada, between October and December 2020, this research study explains how people understood and responded to the idea of bubbles. Our findings reveal the role of situated trust and compensatory strategies in shaping bubbling practices in the context of multiple unknowns, as well as the disconnect between how people understood bubbles conceptually versus how they enacted them.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert, Katelin & Padam, Jasmine & Gray, Garry C., 2026. "The impossibility problem: When public health policies require what structural conditions prevent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 402(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:402:y:2026:i:c:s0277953626004296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953626004296
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:402:y:2026:i:c:s0277953626004296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.