I think what might add a great deal of value to a post like this—and I do like the idea of looking at both sliver lining aspects and what can be learned—would be to compare the suggestions to what actually is supported historically. Did these prior events produce the type of results claimed/hoped? If not perhaps some thoughts on why not.
Also, perhaps some probability/likelihood estimates and level of confidence (however soft they might be) might be good too.
For instance, preparedness for future pandemics seems rather weak to me. Certainly in something came up maybe 5 years after we have this one figured out perhaps. But we’ve seen a lot of epidemics and some pandemics in recent history but still pretty much everyone got things pretty bad—I will give Taiwan a good mark, Singapore and South Korea seem to have done well at the outset but are running into problems. China most definitely did not do well in my opinion on a number of counts. The USA and EU—well might be hard to make a case for even a average grade. Russia? Iran or middle east in general? South America (have not been paying any attention there). Africa?
If we’ve really learned much from the past it doesn’t seem like much to me. However, that might be a very unfair assessment. I’m not really sure what counter-factual outcome I should be comparing the reality against and that will matter a lot.
Indeed analysing how these things have been dealt with in the past would be interesting, but it’s beyond me to do this myself! Lacking the necessary knowledge. Perhaps others can.
Re preparedness for future pandemics, this is the first truly global one for a century, so it seems a different kind of beast from others like SARS. The amount of government and scientific effort being thrown at it is huge, as is the disruption to voters. So it seems to me that voters won’t quickly forget it, and will urge governments to ensure it doesn’t happen again, which will force them to show they are making serious preparations against future ones.
I think what might add a great deal of value to a post like this—and I do like the idea of looking at both sliver lining aspects and what can be learned—would be to compare the suggestions to what actually is supported historically. Did these prior events produce the type of results claimed/hoped? If not perhaps some thoughts on why not.
Also, perhaps some probability/likelihood estimates and level of confidence (however soft they might be) might be good too.
For instance, preparedness for future pandemics seems rather weak to me. Certainly in something came up maybe 5 years after we have this one figured out perhaps. But we’ve seen a lot of epidemics and some pandemics in recent history but still pretty much everyone got things pretty bad—I will give Taiwan a good mark, Singapore and South Korea seem to have done well at the outset but are running into problems. China most definitely did not do well in my opinion on a number of counts. The USA and EU—well might be hard to make a case for even a average grade. Russia? Iran or middle east in general? South America (have not been paying any attention there). Africa?
If we’ve really learned much from the past it doesn’t seem like much to me. However, that might be a very unfair assessment. I’m not really sure what counter-factual outcome I should be comparing the reality against and that will matter a lot.
Indeed analysing how these things have been dealt with in the past would be interesting, but it’s beyond me to do this myself! Lacking the necessary knowledge. Perhaps others can.
Re preparedness for future pandemics, this is the first truly global one for a century, so it seems a different kind of beast from others like SARS. The amount of government and scientific effort being thrown at it is huge, as is the disruption to voters. So it seems to me that voters won’t quickly forget it, and will urge governments to ensure it doesn’t happen again, which will force them to show they are making serious preparations against future ones.