May 24, 2022·edited May 24, 2022Liked by Alasdair Munro
Thank you for your analysis, I wish that more were doing this kind of work. I'm a little confused and want to better understand how we can keep from making the same mistakes again.
I understand that the UK (and most other countries) went to the 'extreme', in one way or another. It seems to me that the measures (as a whole) had an effect, but can we differentiate those steps that worked and those that didn't? How could a country response, to get the biggest effect? What steps were implemented, but had little effect?
A second question is the ROI (return on investment), or the cost of implementing the different measures. What measures are effective, but the cost is too high (such as China style lockdown, especially following the initial wave, school closures)? Are there measures that give us the most effect for the least cost, or inconvenience (Such as working from home, for those who can)?
My last question is about implementation - how can a society implement public health measures, without mandates (How many people would wear seatbelts, if they didn't have to?)? How do we present the measurers in a way that makes sense for people and is easy for most people to follow?
Is there a way to differentiate the response, according to the structure of the country?
Broadly agree with your analysis - but surely the delay in the first lockdown should be filed under ‘bad’. We had epidemiologists on TV saying we shouldn’t move fast as this might panic the public.
Plus the preparedness of the country for a pandemic (be it flu or coronavirus) was inadequate. We didn’t anticipate vaccines could be delivered so quickly - which would have justified an initial quick lockdown.
Thank you for your analysis, I wish that more were doing this kind of work. I'm a little confused and want to better understand how we can keep from making the same mistakes again.
I understand that the UK (and most other countries) went to the 'extreme', in one way or another. It seems to me that the measures (as a whole) had an effect, but can we differentiate those steps that worked and those that didn't? How could a country response, to get the biggest effect? What steps were implemented, but had little effect?
A second question is the ROI (return on investment), or the cost of implementing the different measures. What measures are effective, but the cost is too high (such as China style lockdown, especially following the initial wave, school closures)? Are there measures that give us the most effect for the least cost, or inconvenience (Such as working from home, for those who can)?
My last question is about implementation - how can a society implement public health measures, without mandates (How many people would wear seatbelts, if they didn't have to?)? How do we present the measurers in a way that makes sense for people and is easy for most people to follow?
Is there a way to differentiate the response, according to the structure of the country?
I'm very grateful for you taking the time to research and write about one of the most important issue of our time. Keep it up!
Broadly agree with your analysis - but surely the delay in the first lockdown should be filed under ‘bad’. We had epidemiologists on TV saying we shouldn’t move fast as this might panic the public.
Plus the preparedness of the country for a pandemic (be it flu or coronavirus) was inadequate. We didn’t anticipate vaccines could be delivered so quickly - which would have justified an initial quick lockdown.