crofter said:
I am still questioning what is different about the US death toll, so much higher than elsewhere.
-crofter
Hmmm.... from a Scandinavian perspective, the main difference between the US, and some other places, like for instance Scandinavia, at first glance, it seems that the leadership did not step up - at the beginning of it all.
Second issue was, that the experienced scientists did not seem to get the best of support from the political leadership.
And this lead to the third big challenge: Division.
If the political leadership,
makes every effort to listen to, and to include, the insights of the experienced experts,
and are secondly able to rally as much political support as possible,
and if the political leadership is THEN (finally and thirdly) able to make, a mutually trustworthy contract with the people.
Then we are all off to a very good start.
But in the end, it is up to the people,
to then choose to follow what ever (often simple) advice or guidelines,
that the political leadership decides to make the beacon (or banner) that the people can follow.
In such a scenario, things will turn out, as well as they possibly can.
But once division creeps in,
at any level of this process,
and for what ever reason,
then the outcome has a very high risk
of not being as optimal as one could hope for.
Or if the beacon (or banner) is not clearly communicated, then fewer will follow.
Also: Very soon after the first presentation of 'the beacon to follow',
further details, and further facts - as they were argued or presented by the experts - needs to be made easily available,
so the people who likes to think for themselves, gets a chance to scrutinize the detailed facts and strategies that lead the experts to recommend that certain path, to the political leadership.
Political leadership is however not only facts and data, it is also based on ideals, principles and visions.
So a level of well communicated details, showing why certain aspects of ideals, principles and visions, were chosen, will also need to be evident (or presented) after the initial beacon has been set as a landmark.
---
Well, this is just my personal opinion.
It is derived from experiences and observation from several different types of crises or conflict.
It is however just my personal vision of how I see optimal (political) leadership may function well.
So your mileage may vary
---
However: at second glance
(read: when the powers of nature change the game - and in this instance specifically winter)
a new and changed situation needs to be assessed.
It very much seem to me, that temperature plays a very huge role in how long this virus thing, can survive 'out in the open'.
And survivability 'out in the open' (for any virus) is crucial for how many people will get affected (and infected).
So it seems to me, that when nature plays us all a twist, then we get a second chance/view of how well the leadership has learned to work together. During the play of a prolonged crises.
Front row seats at round 2:
We also get a second chance to get first row seats at discovering how aspects of the process has allowed a breading ground for 'division' to become part of the game.
And we get a second round of seeing how well leadership is able to deal with all of these cracks within the expert layers, and the leadership/management layers.
And if the leadership is able to continue to manage or create a sense of cohesion among the people, as in 'we are all in this together' - because essentially it is 'mother nature' who is taking us all for spin.
Or is division, by now, the main name of the game.
---
Well, again, these are just some of my personal views and observations.
Does any of this however ring any bells with you (the reader of this)?
---
Good and factual (preferably credible) data
And finally, the question I always ask myself in all of this, how and where can I get fairly reliable data and a somewhat credible projection or vision?
So far I have discovered, that if I can get access to the data, that very local managers need (and use) to make day to day operations survive-and-function, then I can get a good feel of how serious the winds might be blowing.
And likewise, I can get access to some of the same data that the top brass uses, to make decisions, and to formulate their weekly forecasts (and beacons) from, then I can, again, better access for my self, the general direction of the storm.
So, how well do you feel that all of these aspects are being communicated to you, in your specific setting?
So you can better make personal, and very individual choices about how to best ride out this storm?
---
As one of my main points, at the top of my rant, was:
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]in the end - it is up to the people - [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]to then choose to follow the (often simple) advice or guidelines [/font]
---
Do you feel that there is a well functioning, mutually trustworthy, 'contract' between leadership, and the people?
Have you looked at the countries where this particular crises, has been handled with seemingly good results - and have you been able to determine: if the leadership has been able to present a mutually trustworthy plan, between all levels of leadership - and the people?
Or are all the good results simply growing from the people, because of good traditions of community, and a high leve of care and compassion between and among the people?
---
So crofter, has my rant been of any use to you?
