Overreacting to swine flu
The incentives in potential-pandemic leadership are misaligned. Even if there's only a one in 100 chance of disaster, no authority figure wants to be the one who was seen to fiddle while pandemic struck. Even if it's illogical and harmful, people seldom lose their jobs by panicking and overreacting. They do lose their jobs if the worst happens and they were perceived to be passive. So closing schools, setting up quarantines, advising against travel etc. are forms of career insurance. There's also lots of context behavior going on. Leaders see other leaders overreacting, so they decide that's the appropriate thing to do.
From the Guardian:
The European Union advised against nonessential travel to the United States and Mexico, China, Taiwan and Russia considered quarantines and several Asian countries scrutinized visitors arriving at their airports.In the United States, a private school in South Carolina was closed Monday because of fears that young people returning from Mexico might have been infected.
Comments
Even if there's only a one in 100 chance...
Point taken, although most risk managers deal in two dimensions, not in just one: risk AND exposure.
Risk is the chance of something happening; exposure is the consequence of something happening.
For example, the risk of me getting a head cold in the next twelve months is high, but the exposure if I get a head cold is low...I'll be a little stuffed up and out of sorts for a few days.
The risk of me developing an inoperable brain tumor is low, but the exposure if I do develop it is extreme: death.
The risk of this being a true pandemic is likely low, but the exposure if a true pandemic develops is high. Spending millions of dollars to avoid head colds is folly; mitigating the risks of a true pandemic occuring is more likely worth the effort.
Posted by: Bucky | April 27, 2009 3:49 PM
Even if there's only a one in 100 chance...
Point taken, although most risk managers deal in two dimensions, not in just one: risk AND exposure.
Risk is the chance of something happening; exposure is the consequence of something happening.
For example, the risk of me getting a head cold in the next twelve months is high, but the exposure if I get a head cold is low...I'll be a little stuffed up and out of sorts for a few days.
The risk of me developing an inoperable brain tumor is low, but the exposure if I do develop it is extreme: death.
The risk of this being a true pandemic is likely low, but the exposure if a true pandemic develops is high. Spending millions of dollars to avoid head colds is folly; mitigating the risks of a true pandemic occuring is more likely worth the effort.
Posted by: Bucky | April 27, 2009 3:50 PM
I swear I didn't click twice.
Posted by: Bucky | April 27, 2009 4:11 PM
With the outbreak of swine flu, proactive prevention is SO important. There is a great proactive program out called Germy Wormy Germ Smart Kids that teaches young children how to both keep from catching AND spreading the germs that can cause this possibly deadly flu virus! It can be used at home or in the daycare/school setting. Check it out!
http://germywormy.com
Posted by: Maggie Brown | April 28, 2009 12:06 AM
re: "In the United States, a private school in South Carolina was closed Monday because of fears that young people returning from Mexico might have been infected."
I do not follow your logic in this being an over-reaction. It was prudent management by School Officials working with governmental agencies to attempt to contain what might possibly be swine flu ~~ to which there is no human immunity.
The students in the Newberry School are exhibiting flu-like symptoms and have been identified as "probable cases" of swine flu. The final determination will not be until the appropriate testing has been done and it has been determined.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Posted by: Apps | April 28, 2009 7:36 AM