Thanks Jessica and Sean for this powerful and inspiring post.
I would add one more, perhaps even more important, way in which engineers can contribute here—which is more or less what you have just done!
As engineers, you probably don’t even consciously realise this anymore, but the type of analysis you’ve shared here is pure engineering, it’s a way of thinking that we get so drilled into us that we don’t realise we didn’t always think that way.
For example, the three layer model (prevention, response, resilience) is almost perfectly analogous to how chemical engineers study explosion safety when handling solvents. First, you ask how to prevent an explosion (safe procedures, no ignition sources, nitrogen-blanketing, …). Second, you ask how to minimise the risk of harm if there is an explosion (safe enclosures, PPE, minimum people present, etc. …), and third, you study how to minimise the extent of harm (fire-evacuation procedures, emergency-help, first-aid training, …).
From this perspective, I’d also add one comment, which is that the assumption that each reduction of 50% in one means to total reduction of 50% is only true if they are independent. One of the most difficult challenges in a safety analysis is to identify cases where one accident can break two barriers at once. The stereotypical example of this (from my youth) was the nuclear war scenario in which the electromagnetic wave from the explosion destroyed the communication structure and so a lot of the response capability. We know about that now and can design around it, but there are probably other factors, like the viral infection that makes it impossible for the vaccine designers to do their work.
I look forward to seeing more and more engineers working on civilisation resilience! Thanks for getting the ball rolling with Hi-Eng!
Thanks Jessica and Sean for this powerful and inspiring post.
I would add one more, perhaps even more important, way in which engineers can contribute here—which is more or less what you have just done!
As engineers, you probably don’t even consciously realise this anymore, but the type of analysis you’ve shared here is pure engineering, it’s a way of thinking that we get so drilled into us that we don’t realise we didn’t always think that way.
For example, the three layer model (prevention, response, resilience) is almost perfectly analogous to how chemical engineers study explosion safety when handling solvents. First, you ask how to prevent an explosion (safe procedures, no ignition sources, nitrogen-blanketing, …). Second, you ask how to minimise the risk of harm if there is an explosion (safe enclosures, PPE, minimum people present, etc. …), and third, you study how to minimise the extent of harm (fire-evacuation procedures, emergency-help, first-aid training, …).
From this perspective, I’d also add one comment, which is that the assumption that each reduction of 50% in one means to total reduction of 50% is only true if they are independent. One of the most difficult challenges in a safety analysis is to identify cases where one accident can break two barriers at once. The stereotypical example of this (from my youth) was the nuclear war scenario in which the electromagnetic wave from the explosion destroyed the communication structure and so a lot of the response capability. We know about that now and can design around it, but there are probably other factors, like the viral infection that makes it impossible for the vaccine designers to do their work.
I look forward to seeing more and more engineers working on civilisation resilience! Thanks for getting the ball rolling with Hi-Eng!