I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common, almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are problems with it.
In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it.
A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injury. So then you go and run on it, and it makes the knee injury worse. You treated the symptom, and nothing changed.
But there are definitely examples where treating the symptom does help. For instance, someone is temporarily depressed because of a unresolved situation in their lives. And yet, they cannot address the situation because the depression is in the way. So, they take an anti-depressant, and then maybe they can resolve their root cause, and then maybe they can go off the anti-depressant.
Someone like an Ortiz, yes, is a symptom of a deeper problem. But I'm not convinced it is like the pain in a knee, where treating it will make zero difference. A bum knee isn't exacerbated by the pain. But the system may be exacerbated by Ortiz. A bum knee doesn't become a bit less bum from witnessing the taking of a pain med. But if the system recognizes an Ortiz downfall and receives a data point of what "going to far" is, then maybe that would have an effect.
Probably not a sufficient effect, probably not enough, but I'm just pointing out that the fact that Ortiz is a symptom, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to believe that "nothing will change". Also not sufficient reason to believe that the symptom should not be treated.