3 ms·

The quickest decision is random number generation. Should people go with that? Governments across the world had loads and loads of time. > Adding research capa

The quickest decision is random number generation. Should people go with that? Governments across the world had loads and loads of time. > Adding research capacity to ensure that governments have a stable of well-researched, thoroughly-vetted models for emergencies would be a great thing, but it would also be quite expensive. Keeping any single model up to spec might be the job of 1FTE (so an additional ~$150k/grant/yr -- large for a research budget but small for a government), but that would have to be multiplied by every area where the government might possibly want research-informed decisionmaking on short notice. If you have a once in a century crisis, and still are thinking about saving some millions, while being sure your crisis response will be above billions, your policy is already flawed and not much can be done to help you.

Majromax 6y ago
>If you have a once in a century crisis, and still are thinking about saving some millions, while being sure your crisis response will be above billions, your policy is already flawed and not much can be done to help you. By the time you're in the crisis, it's too late to make software bulletproof. Not only does that process take time, but it also needs to be integrated with the whole of the research effort up to that point. So you can't pick and choose topics: you need the funding to make bulletproof every potential policy-related model you might need in an emergency. That's where the costs add up, since we don't have a time machine to go back and fund exactly the lines of research we in fact need at the moment.
- enitihas 6y ago
  But nobody is asking for bullet proof software here. Nobody is asking perfect MC/DC coverage. If governments are so incompetent that they can't forsee a crisis like this even one month in advance, where even sanitizer hoarders have better foresight, then off course nothing can really help. Governments do spend billions and trillions of money on national defence, and an issue like this when it's almost at the door should be given the zame priority as national defence.

Majromax 6y ago

>If you have a once in a century crisis, and still are thinking about saving some millions, while being sure your crisis response will be above billions, your policy is already flawed and not much can be done to help you. By the time you're in the crisis, it's too late to make software bulletproof. Not only does that process take time, but it also needs to be integrated with the whole of the research effort up to that point. So you can't pick and choose topics: you need the funding to make bulletproof every potential policy-related model you might need in an emergency. That's where the costs add up, since we don't have a time machine to go back and fund exactly the lines of research we in fact need at the moment.

enitihas 6y ago
But nobody is asking for bullet proof software here. Nobody is asking perfect MC/DC coverage. If governments are so incompetent that they can't forsee a crisis like this even one month in advance, where even sanitizer hoarders have better foresight, then off course nothing can really help. Governments do spend billions and trillions of money on national defence, and an issue like this when it's almost at the door should be given the zame priority as national defence.