4 ms·

The thing is many countries have their disaster management strategies for pandemics. But when it comes action, the strategiea fail. There are many reasons for t

The thing is many countries have their disaster management strategies for pandemics. But when it comes action, the strategiea fail. There are many reasons for this. First of all, previous pandemics like bird flu had fast infection but it was known to the experts and easier than COVID-19 to handle. But COVID was unknown and it took more time to respond properly and actually there's still more unknown things that the responses cannot be validated. It's hard to respond unknown unknowns.[1] Second, the strategies are great on paper but when it comes to implementing them, it is all about the politics. The politics of funding the research institutes and academic institutions, the structure of the nation's health care system, economic situation and use of state budget to support people in the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, the policies to allow human movement such as lock downs and restrictions... When it comes to actions, it's just the decision of the politicians. Third, the strategies are created with stakeholders based on previous experience. And when they exercised, they are based on either previously occurred issues or predictions of the experts/participants of the strategy. You cannot be prepared for everything so you create many different feasible scenarios and exercise them. And they are limited by the capability of the participants. Finally, strategies are already flexible because they are not binding for the states. A government can change the strategy on the go. A government can also totally ignore the current strategy for its political agenda. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

didericis 5y ago
> A government can also totally ignore the current strategy for its political agenda. This is the crux of the current failures. Many politicians seem to be making decisions based on the consensus of the loudest in their constituencies and select experts who mirror them rather than people who have studied epidemiology. The Great Barrington Declaration advocated more traditional responses for prioritizing the protection of those most at risk prior to the vaccines. The public discussion around this was almost entirely based on optics, and the term "herd immunity" was demonized and considered too non compassionate. It was treated like a political language exercise rather than a public safety issue. Now that term has quietly reentered discourse without much acknowledgment of what was stated by those epidemiologists because reality isn't permitting any other end state. Yet many of the original policies which the declaration advises against are still being repeated and still failing, I think in large part to save face. Many people recognized the problems with the current policies and advocated better ones very quickly. The amount of unknowns were mostly only an issue for the first few months. Once the demographic data came in a sensible response should have been (and was to many) fairly obvious. But sensible policy acknowledges a certain unavoidable risk, and the optics of that isn't allowable in our current political climate, so we advocate delusional fantasies instead. Those trained in fields like epidemiology and pandemic response who know what they're doing and see the failures should continue to refuse to sign their name to bad policy and publicize their issues with it. That's what the Great Barrington Declaration was and what some who have resigned from certain positions at the CDC have done. The main justification for bad policy has been "the support of experts". Public health experts are having their field tarnished dramatically by being leaned upon in name by people that are ignoring their actual advice. They should stop allowing it. They have the most power to hold irresponsible politicians accountable, and should exercise it. The amount of good disaster management strategy that was thrown out because it had the potential to look bad and was more difficult to implement than ineffective measures (like designating certain areas safe spots for at risk people and providing spaces for them to shelter during spikes) should be more publicized.

didericis 5y ago

> A government can also totally ignore the current strategy for its political agenda. This is the crux of the current failures. Many politicians seem to be making decisions based on the consensus of the loudest in their constituencies and select experts who mirror them rather than people who have studied epidemiology. The Great Barrington Declaration advocated more traditional responses for prioritizing the protection of those most at risk prior to the vaccines. The public discussion around this was almost entirely based on optics, and the term "herd immunity" was demonized and considered too non compassionate. It was treated like a political language exercise rather than a public safety issue. Now that term has quietly reentered discourse without much acknowledgment of what was stated by those epidemiologists because reality isn't permitting any other end state. Yet many of the original policies which the declaration advises against are still being repeated and still failing, I think in large part to save face. Many people recognized the problems with the current policies and advocated better ones very quickly. The amount of unknowns were mostly only an issue for the first few months. Once the demographic data came in a sensible response should have been (and was to many) fairly obvious. But sensible policy acknowledges a certain unavoidable risk, and the optics of that isn't allowable in our current political climate, so we advocate delusional fantasies instead. Those trained in fields like epidemiology and pandemic response who know what they're doing and see the failures should continue to refuse to sign their name to bad policy and publicize their issues with it. That's what the Great Barrington Declaration was and what some who have resigned from certain positions at the CDC have done. The main justification for bad policy has been "the support of experts". Public health experts are having their field tarnished dramatically by being leaned upon in name by people that are ignoring their actual advice. They should stop allowing it. They have the most power to hold irresponsible politicians accountable, and should exercise it. The amount of good disaster management strategy that was thrown out because it had the potential to look bad and was more difficult to implement than ineffective measures (like designating certain areas safe spots for at risk people and providing spaces for them to shelter during spikes) should be more publicized.