5 ms·

It's futile arguing that the risk is low because the officials classified it as such when I stated that I disagree with their risk assessment and management str

It's futile arguing that the risk is low because the officials classified it as such when I stated that I disagree with their risk assessment and management strategy. If I look at a risk matrix I would classify the risk impact of not quarantining as significant to disastrous and the likelihood as very likely. That puts the current situation in all of the world at the highest risk. Risk matrix example: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publication/260010346/figure/fig1/AS:297248975015943@1447881086616/Example-of-how-different-scenarios-fit-within-a-risk-matrix-4.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Fleming3/publicat...

hef19898 7y ago
One last comment because you clearly seem to prefer to live in your own world. Assessing risk the way you do has one big issue (it actually has multiple but let's stick with one). When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. And by classifying it as disastrous, you run into issues when classifying stuff like Ebola for example. Over-classifying has that effect on measuring systems, that's why you need teams of experts from multiple disciplines to do it properly. And would have to do so at multiple sub levels for each criteria. The whole purpose is to take gut feeling and emotions out of the process. Doing it alone makes the whole exercise pointless. Now, take that whatever way you want.
- rglullis 7y ago
  This over-reliance on "experts" is what got things to this state in the first place. Not that long ago, WHO was adamant in saying that flying to China was still okay and that "there was no reason to take extreme measures". How many lives were lost because of that? Conversely, had they recommended more aggressive contention measures, how many trips would have been avoided? How much slower would the virus come to Europe? If sirens were ringing 4 weeks ago by the WHO "experts", perhaps Italy wouldn't need to be in lockdown now. > When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. Not really. We put in the disastrous category because we don't have enough information to claim that it is not a mass-extinction event. In the face of a threat of unknown risk and the potential impact is unbounded, we got to treat it as the worst and prepare for the worst, cost-analysis be damned! But if you prefer to ignore me and refer to experts, please listen to Nassim Taleb, who may know a thing or two about risk analysis: https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_via_Novel_Pathogens_-_Coronavirus_A_Note https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Mass-extinction? That escalated quickly. Maybe uninstall Plague Inc. for a while? And no, that is exactly not how risk assessment is supposed to work.
    - rglullis 7y ago
      Do you have kids? Older parents? Would you tell them that is totally fine to keep doing what they are doing just because the experts haven't assessed the risk yet? It doesn't have to be a literal mass-extinction event for this type of thing to lead to some catastrophic events affecting people you know and care about. If it were to happen (I honestly hope it doesn't) to someone you care about, I am sure that "the experts told me things were fine" will be of little consolation. How about dropping the sarcasm and word-thinking and start to put some thought into the questions I made regarding the WHO recommendations up until some weeks ago? I bet if you could go back in time to Italy just three weeks ago, you wouldn't be telling people to just "listen to the experts", would you?
      - hef19898 7y ago
        You might think this is strange, but the short answer is yes. Now a slightly longer one. Guidelines on how infection risk can be minimised are very consistent. And they make perfect sense. So yes, that's the advice I give my two kids, my parents (both of which fall into the high risk age groups, luckily they are following that advice already without me), and the advice I follow myself. WHO recommendations are based on the best available picture to them. I prefer to trust someone changing his opinion when data changes over someone who paints a worst case scenario from day one on. And yes, if someone from my family ultimately dies, which I really don't hope, having done everything experts told us to do to prevent it would be the only consolation there is. The alternative being fear mongering, panic and paranoia. In which any infections happening toy loved ones (assuming I am the only factor behind there behaviour, which I am thankfully not as my family thinks pretty well for themselves) would be to a certain degree on me. And the experts have assessed the risk. Hence the advice they give. But you do you, ok? As long as you stop spreading stories about mass extinction and stuff like that.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  Ebola is certainly disastrous but the likelihood is unlikely. Also you are being disingenuous. I said >the risk impact of not quarantining as significant to disastrous and the likelihood as very likely. which means I would classify it as very significant. Regardless it doesn't change the risk rating.

hef19898 7y ago

One last comment because you clearly seem to prefer to live in your own world. Assessing risk the way you do has one big issue (it actually has multiple but let's stick with one). When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. And by classifying it as disastrous, you run into issues when classifying stuff like Ebola for example. Over-classifying has that effect on measuring systems, that's why you need teams of experts from multiple disciplines to do it properly. And would have to do so at multiple sub levels for each criteria. The whole purpose is to take gut feeling and emotions out of the process. Doing it alone makes the whole exercise pointless. Now, take that whatever way you want.

rglullis 7y ago
This over-reliance on "experts" is what got things to this state in the first place. Not that long ago, WHO was adamant in saying that flying to China was still okay and that "there was no reason to take extreme measures". How many lives were lost because of that? Conversely, had they recommended more aggressive contention measures, how many trips would have been avoided? How much slower would the virus come to Europe? If sirens were ringing 4 weeks ago by the WHO "experts", perhaps Italy wouldn't need to be in lockdown now. > When you put Corona in the disastrous category you habe to provide reasons for doing so, otherwise it is just a gut feeling. Not really. We put in the disastrous category because we don't have enough information to claim that it is not a mass-extinction event. In the face of a threat of unknown risk and the potential impact is unbounded, we got to treat it as the worst and prepare for the worst, cost-analysis be damned! But if you prefer to ignore me and refer to experts, please listen to Nassim Taleb, who may know a thing or two about risk analysis: https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_via_Novel_Pathogens_-_Coronavirus_A_Note https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...
- hef19898 7y ago
  Mass-extinction? That escalated quickly. Maybe uninstall Plague Inc. for a while? And no, that is exactly not how risk assessment is supposed to work.
  - rglullis 7y ago
    Do you have kids? Older parents? Would you tell them that is totally fine to keep doing what they are doing just because the experts haven't assessed the risk yet? It doesn't have to be a literal mass-extinction event for this type of thing to lead to some catastrophic events affecting people you know and care about. If it were to happen (I honestly hope it doesn't) to someone you care about, I am sure that "the experts told me things were fine" will be of little consolation. How about dropping the sarcasm and word-thinking and start to put some thought into the questions I made regarding the WHO recommendations up until some weeks ago? I bet if you could go back in time to Italy just three weeks ago, you wouldn't be telling people to just "listen to the experts", would you?
    - hef19898 7y ago
      You might think this is strange, but the short answer is yes. Now a slightly longer one. Guidelines on how infection risk can be minimised are very consistent. And they make perfect sense. So yes, that's the advice I give my two kids, my parents (both of which fall into the high risk age groups, luckily they are following that advice already without me), and the advice I follow myself. WHO recommendations are based on the best available picture to them. I prefer to trust someone changing his opinion when data changes over someone who paints a worst case scenario from day one on. And yes, if someone from my family ultimately dies, which I really don't hope, having done everything experts told us to do to prevent it would be the only consolation there is. The alternative being fear mongering, panic and paranoia. In which any infections happening toy loved ones (assuming I am the only factor behind there behaviour, which I am thankfully not as my family thinks pretty well for themselves) would be to a certain degree on me. And the experts have assessed the risk. Hence the advice they give. But you do you, ok? As long as you stop spreading stories about mass extinction and stuff like that.
rorykoehler 7y ago
Ebola is certainly disastrous but the likelihood is unlikely. Also you are being disingenuous. I said >the risk impact of not quarantining as significant to disastrous and the likelihood as very likely. which means I would classify it as very significant. Regardless it doesn't change the risk rating.