4 ms·

It's not just about fighting the last war, though. It's also about having competent leadership that's able to adapt to a new reality, quickly discover which of

by marvin 7y ago

It's not just about fighting the last war, though. It's also about having competent leadership that's able to adapt to a new reality, quickly discover which of their current heuristics are wrong, and then reason from first principles about what needs to be done for a good outcome in the current situation. There has been a spectacular difference in various nations' performance during this crisis. As a Scandinavian I'm a bit skewed in my judgement, but I'm especially in awe at Denmark and Norway's actions, given their lack of recent history with infectious disease: Quickly discover from external evidence what the new reality is, that it's much worse than anything seen during the lifetimes of current leaders, that it requires extreme measures normally only deployed during times of war, and then use science-based leadership and a broad array of expertise to choose what measures to apply. Then apply them with vigor and competently deal with the fallout. This is not trivial - crucially, it requires that the central leadership avoids dogmatic and heuristic reasoning adapted to conditions that no longer apply. Because even if you have such top leadership, there will be leaders on the second tier of this hierarchy that are not used to reasoning on a war footing. They will act or give advice that's normally sound, but counterproductive in the new and extreme reality. Top leadership needs to catch onto this fast, and strike down or disregard advice that's not applicable to the crisis at hand. You can see these phenomena in a plethora of fields. Scientists grasping for N=100,000 double-blind randomized peer-reviewed studies for a novel phenomenon, rather than make the best educated guess from reasoning and available evidence. National leadership trying to solve a health-induced economic crisis by printing money and nothing else. Politicians infighting and posturing by old routine, as if the enemy army isn't already banging down the gates. Reasoning by analogy, let's do the same as we do in a bad flu season. Blame the other party, has always worked before. Or a subtle insidious variant that's currently responsible for Sweden's problems: let the experts handle it, and dictate public policy without regard for what happens outside of their field of expertise. Turns out an expert in a narrow field with an IQ of 120 and a track record of success is a very dangerous leader. They often aren't aware of their blind spots.

pasabagi 7y ago
I think competent leadership is one of those unsolved problems, that has the added malus of being, insofar as we have some ideas, a tough pill to swallow for any given current leadership. Granted, most problems are manageable with excellent leadership, but the whole point about a good system is it works fine with mediocre leaders - and there's a corollary - if your organization requires talented leadership to function, it's a bad organization.
geomark 7y ago
Yes, competent leadership. Doing things in the way you described. I have a real conundrum, however, when I compare countries that are held up as good examples and the place where I live, Thailand, which is largely ignored in all the multi-country charts. You see, as of today we have 2,473 confirmed cases and 33 deaths in Thailand. Denmark, on the other had 5,819 confirmed cases and 247 deaths as of a couple of days ago. I am sure the data is noisy and that testing here is not nearly widespread enough. But the bodies are not piling up and we don't really have the kind of censorship here that would keep it hidden if there were a lot of deaths from Covid-19. And most importantly, the words "competent government leadership" and "Thailand" should never be uttered in the same sentence. So I guess leaders have done some things right by listening to the right experts (a form of competence I suppose). Or maybe it's the weather (popular theory that seems to have been dismissed). Or cultural habits have saved Thailand. Because I look to more advanced countries, especially in Scandinavia, and don't understand why they are doing so much worse than where I live.
- lostphilosopher 7y ago
  > So I guess leaders have done some things right by listening to the right experts (a form of competence I suppose). This is the most important form of competence for a leader of government. There is no chance any leader would have adequate expertise in every subject they would need to be versed in in order to lead their nation. They _must_ bring in and rely on SMEs to make informed choices. (Of course they still have to make the choice.)
- marvin 7y ago
  Are you sure that the proportions (confirmed cases) / (actual cases) and (confirmed deaths) / (actual deaths) are the same in these countries? That's my biggest concern whenever I see dramatically (i.e. 2x or more) different death rates between countries. Climate, general health, age distribution and other unknown factors certainly play into it, and could easily affect the rate of deaths by such a factor. But I smell a rat when I hear that Norway get 5% positives and NYC gets 25% when they test. Also, Italy makes it clear that even with a relatively consistent approach to hunting down the corpses, a big factor can get lost in the noise. Way above 2x. So it's not trivial to compare this between countries, but it seems feasible to (by critical judgement) at least distinguish between a wildly incompetent and a good response.

by marvin 7y ago

pasabagi 7y ago

I think competent leadership is one of those unsolved problems, that has the added malus of being, insofar as we have some ideas, a tough pill to swallow for any given current leadership. Granted, most problems are manageable with excellent leadership, but the whole point about a good system is it works fine with mediocre leaders - and there's a corollary - if your organization requires talented leadership to function, it's a bad organization.

geomark 7y ago

Yes, competent leadership. Doing things in the way you described. I have a real conundrum, however, when I compare countries that are held up as good examples and the place where I live, Thailand, which is largely ignored in all the multi-country charts. You see, as of today we have 2,473 confirmed cases and 33 deaths in Thailand. Denmark, on the other had 5,819 confirmed cases and 247 deaths as of a couple of days ago. I am sure the data is noisy and that testing here is not nearly widespread enough. But the bodies are not piling up and we don't really have the kind of censorship here that would keep it hidden if there were a lot of deaths from Covid-19. And most importantly, the words "competent government leadership" and "Thailand" should never be uttered in the same sentence. So I guess leaders have done some things right by listening to the right experts (a form of competence I suppose). Or maybe it's the weather (popular theory that seems to have been dismissed). Or cultural habits have saved Thailand. Because I look to more advanced countries, especially in Scandinavia, and don't understand why they are doing so much worse than where I live.

lostphilosopher 7y ago
> So I guess leaders have done some things right by listening to the right experts (a form of competence I suppose). This is the most important form of competence for a leader of government. There is no chance any leader would have adequate expertise in every subject they would need to be versed in in order to lead their nation. They _must_ bring in and rely on SMEs to make informed choices. (Of course they still have to make the choice.)
marvin 7y ago
Are you sure that the proportions (confirmed cases) / (actual cases) and (confirmed deaths) / (actual deaths) are the same in these countries? That's my biggest concern whenever I see dramatically (i.e. 2x or more) different death rates between countries. Climate, general health, age distribution and other unknown factors certainly play into it, and could easily affect the rate of deaths by such a factor. But I smell a rat when I hear that Norway get 5% positives and NYC gets 25% when they test. Also, Italy makes it clear that even with a relatively consistent approach to hunting down the corpses, a big factor can get lost in the noise. Way above 2x. So it's not trivial to compare this between countries, but it seems feasible to (by critical judgement) at least distinguish between a wildly incompetent and a good response.