My general feeling is that the 'wisdom of the crowd' will always outstrip any soviet-style top-down management when it comes to a crisis like this. I guess I'm saying trust the public essentially.
- If there's a virus going round with a death rate of, let's say 0.5%, then some people will choose to stay home.
- If there's a virus going round with a death rate of 20% then lots and lots of people will choose to stay home.
So the public reaction will always be proportional to the risk to a large degree anyway, regardless of whether a government uses force of law or not. That's not to say that government compulsion is never ever necessary or justified. It does however suggest that any such action should be a last resort, and only used strategically, where there is no other option.
Information, Advice, Options
I think if I was designing a strategy for dealing with something like this I'd have a simple, three-pronged plan for managing the general public.
Good information. Good advice. Good options.
Good information would simply be providing easy access to good data and other related information. From a variety of sources.
Good advice would essentially be the government saying "this is our assessment of the situation, ...this is what we recommend."
Good options would then be governments helping citizens to make maximum effect of whatever choices they make as individuals. So, for example, "We highly recommend that you stay home and self isolate for the next two weeks, however, if you choose not to do that we recommend that you take the following precautions when you do go out. If you need PPE call this number and we'll have some delivered to your home, etc, etc".
Access to information. Access to resources. Good options. Trust people to understand their personal individual situation better than any government can. Maximise the collective intelligence of the nation. Help foster an organic, flexible response.
No comments:
Post a Comment