I’m pretty late to this! Something I notice in this post, which is mentioned in one of the comments, is that it focuses on money and competence as the main barriers to tackling Covid. I would say that the way institutions are set up to make decisions and implement them is a much bigger factor.
The fast timeline described would only be possible in a world where our institutions were set up completely differently. For example, when thinking about how things should have gone, it’s easy to say person X and person Y should have talked to each other without realising that they probably didn’t have each other’s phone numbers, and might not have known each other existed!
We can and should look at how our institutions could have been set up differently to handle Covid better, but that requires some thought too. Institutions that are optimised for one thing are by default not optimised for other things—if we redesigned our institutions to prepare for the next Covid, that might not help us very much in dealing with a super-volcano, or everyday life.
The reason I point this out is because I think this kind of naive analysis is actually very useful—I think it does achieve the goal of showing us where we could have done better—and at its most useful, it highlights weaknesses in systems that can be improved. But I’m concerned that if this kind of analysis were shared without recognizing its limitations it could come across badly.
Agreed—and I agree that “naive” is the right word for it.
I think the main thing I would change about the post (besides the info from Chi which greatly weakens one of the 4 main planks) is better emphasising that it sketches an ideal ceiling which we shouldexpect to sink as details are added. A relatively realistic ideal, but not strong warrant for righteous rage.
I’m pretty late to this! Something I notice in this post, which is mentioned in one of the comments, is that it focuses on money and competence as the main barriers to tackling Covid. I would say that the way institutions are set up to make decisions and implement them is a much bigger factor.
The fast timeline described would only be possible in a world where our institutions were set up completely differently. For example, when thinking about how things should have gone, it’s easy to say person X and person Y should have talked to each other without realising that they probably didn’t have each other’s phone numbers, and might not have known each other existed!
We can and should look at how our institutions could have been set up differently to handle Covid better, but that requires some thought too. Institutions that are optimised for one thing are by default not optimised for other things—if we redesigned our institutions to prepare for the next Covid, that might not help us very much in dealing with a super-volcano, or everyday life.
The reason I point this out is because I think this kind of naive analysis is actually very useful—I think it does achieve the goal of showing us where we could have done better—and at its most useful, it highlights weaknesses in systems that can be improved. But I’m concerned that if this kind of analysis were shared without recognizing its limitations it could come across badly.
Agreed—and I agree that “naive” is the right word for it.
I think the main thing I would change about the post (besides the info from Chi which greatly weakens one of the 4 main planks) is better emphasising that it sketches an ideal ceiling which we should expect to sink as details are added. A relatively realistic ideal, but not strong warrant for righteous rage.
Signing off now; thanks to everyone.