Do you think the PPE/PAPR example is part of that very small subset? It just happens to be the area I started working on by deference, and I might’ve gotten unlucky.
I think PAPR / developing very high quality PPE can probably be justified on the basis of accidental release risks and discussing deliberate threats wouldn’t add much to the argument, but stockpiles for basic PPE would be easily justified on just natural threats
I think in addition to policymakers not being scope sensitive, they’re also rarely thinking in terms of expected value, such that concern around accidents can drive similar action to concern around deliberate threats, since the probability of accidents is greater
Actually big caveat here is that policymakers in defence / national security departments might be more responsive to the deliberate threat risk, since that falls more clearly within their scope
Do you think the PPE/PAPR example is part of that very small subset? It just happens to be the area I started working on by deference, and I might’ve gotten unlucky.
Or is the crux here response vs prevention?
I think PAPR / developing very high quality PPE can probably be justified on the basis of accidental release risks and discussing deliberate threats wouldn’t add much to the argument, but stockpiles for basic PPE would be easily justified on just natural threats
I think in addition to policymakers not being scope sensitive, they’re also rarely thinking in terms of expected value, such that concern around accidents can drive similar action to concern around deliberate threats, since the probability of accidents is greater
Actually big caveat here is that policymakers in defence / national security departments might be more responsive to the deliberate threat risk, since that falls more clearly within their scope