From a twitter thread by Kevin Bardosh.
Did u support lockdowns but now question them?
— Kevin Bardosh (@KevinBardosh) September 21, 2022
Prof. Woolhouse=1 of Scotland's most senior ID epidemiologists
đ§”/25; my favourite quotes from his book: "The Year the World Went Mad"
"My main aim in writing this book is that lockdown scepticism will become the mainstream view"
He has the aside that the governmental response to the pandemic in the UK (and most other countries as well, including the US) was characterized by
Too much focus on tactics, not enough on strategy.
Too true. Virtually every critical decision in the US was suspect or wrong at the time and has proven to have been wrong in hindsight. There appeared to be a desperate need from government for there 1) to be a crisis, and 2) be seen to be responsive to the crisis (almost independent of actual effectiveness.)
But Bardosh's comment can be extended perhaps. For any novel, complex, dynamic and evolving chaotic system, all efforts to make decisions (governmental or otherwise, but especially centralized decision-making) on a proven and empirical basis will be outstripped by the evolution of the of the very nature of the problem.
The only resort will be to established principles which will have an inherent degree of risk and uncertainty attached to them but which will be, on average, the best response to an otherwise undefinable, fast evolving, and data-bereft condition.
Since most people are uncomfortable with risk and uncertainty, there will be a strong temptation to revert to too much focus on tactics, not enough on strategy. It will become more important to some parties to be seen to be doing something rather than standing back, enduring the risk of a principles-based response and possibly being seen to be aloof and unresponsive.
Basically, the poor decision-making is entirely a consequence of frightened, ineffective, and unprincipled leadership.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment