I keep hearing that “this is a once in on hundred year event; no one could have ever predicted this”

Now maybe it’s just my inner engineer screaming out, but why does the government and the media continue suggest that it’s simply impossible to plan for an event like the covid-19 pandemic? Note, that since the Spanish Flu pandemic there have been at least three or four events that could have have similar global impact since then.

I mean we plan and design for all sorts of high consequence, low frequency events (floods, earthquakes, cyclones, etc..)all the time; does the Treasury simply not conduct risk assessments?.

Why, when designing budgets are governments not bound to follow standards that account for these types of events?

diddly-squat said:

I keep hearing that “this is a once in on hundred year event; no one could have ever predicted this”

Now maybe it’s just my inner engineer screaming out, but why does the government and the media continue suggest that it’s simply impossible to plan for an event like the covid-19 pandemic? Note, that since the Spanish Flu pandemic there have been at least three or four events that could have have similar global impact since then.

I mean we plan and design for all sorts of high consequence, low frequency events (floods, earthquakes, cyclones, etc..)all the time; does the Treasury simply not conduct risk assessments?.

Why, when designing budgets are governments not bound to follow standards that account for these types of events?

It is a very fair assessment and question.

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

Before you ask, it was deliberate. ;)

same reason a person might cancel or trim down their insurance, in fact the terms in one in one hundred year event, or fifty year event, these terms are related to the idea of act of God, that sort of thing

transition said:

same reason a person might cancel or trim down their insurance, in fact the terms in one in one hundred year event, or fifty year event, these terms are related to the idea of act of God, that sort of thing

I thought they’d removed that from the fine print?

diddly-squat said:

I keep hearing that “this is a once in on hundred year event; no one could have ever predicted this”

Now maybe it’s just my inner engineer screaming out, but why does the government and the media continue suggest that it’s simply impossible to plan for an event like the covid-19 pandemic? Note, that since the Spanish Flu pandemic there have been at least three or four events that could have have similar global impact since then.

I mean we plan and design for all sorts of high consequence, low frequency events (floods, earthquakes, cyclones, etc..)all the time; does the Treasury simply not conduct risk assessments?.

Why, when designing budgets are governments not bound to follow standards that account for these types of events?

Hubris that our modern technological society won’t succumb to a pandemic
Plus didn’t expert in health predict and warn about such events will happen

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, in fact I’m happy to call shenanigans on it…

but equally, predicting the cyclone isn’t the issue (or at the least it’s not really the nub of my question).. the issue is designing structures to withstand the cyclone when it done happen.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

same reason a person might cancel or trim down their insurance, in fact the terms in one in one hundred year event, or fifty year event, these terms are related to the idea of act of God, that sort of thing

I thought they’d removed that from the fine print?

yeah but I was referring to the ideas in it, of which you’re acquainted

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, in fact I’m happy to call shenanigans on it…

but equally, predicting the cyclone isn’t the issue (or at the least it’s not really the nub of my question).. the issue is designing structures to withstand the cyclone when it done happen.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-23/cyclone-pacific-modelling-forecast-prediction-australia-nz/12484460

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

same reason a person might cancel or trim down their insurance, in fact the terms in one in one hundred year event, or fifty year event, these terms are related to the idea of act of God, that sort of thing

I thought they’d removed that from the fine print?

yeah but I was referring to the ideas in it, of which you’re acquainted

Well, yeah.

the probability of an event depends on the time for it to happen, a global pandemic was a fairly high probability over century or so

with the volume of transport around the world (largely free movement of people etc), containment of a serious contagion became commensurately more difficult and expensive

transition said:

the probability of an event depends on the time for it to happen, a global pandemic was a fairly high probability over century or so

with the volume of transport around the world (largely free movement of people etc), containment of a serious contagion became commensurately more difficult and expensive

That was a problem from the first time a boat moved across water to another bit of terra firma. The numbers and the science haven’t changed since.

Stay socially distanced.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, in fact I’m happy to call shenanigans on it…

but equally, predicting the cyclone isn’t the issue (or at the least it’s not really the nub of my question).. the issue is designing structures to withstand the cyclone when it done happen.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-23/cyclone-pacific-modelling-forecast-prediction-australia-nz/12484460

predicting a seasonal trend is not predicting a specific event.. but I digress

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, in fact I’m happy to call shenanigans on it…

but equally, predicting the cyclone isn’t the issue (or at the least it’s not really the nub of my question).. the issue is designing structures to withstand the cyclone when it done happen.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-23/cyclone-pacific-modelling-forecast-prediction-australia-nz/12484460

predicting a seasonal trend is not predicting a specific event.. but I digress

There was a pun intended double meaning involved but you totally missed it. Oh well.

transition said:

the probability of an event depends on the time for it to happen, a global pandemic was a fairly high probability over century or so

with the volume of transport around the world (largely free movement of people etc), containment of a serious contagion became commensurately more difficult and expensive

I don’t disagree.. and I imagine there is a Pandemic Readiness Plan sitting somewhere on a shelf in Canberra (not that it looks like we followed any structured advice at the outset of the pandemic)

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

Plus with medical supplies you could stockpile large amounts and it expires and then you need to replace it all (or should)

I was watching some alan jones the other day, a very rare thing for me to do, maybe I was having anervous breakdown or something, anyway he was talking about overpopulation, how it’s a taboo subject (was my interpretation), he was right in my opinion, as recall of what he was saying

there is really a pandemic of humans, is my view

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

I’m not sure I understand, I mean it’s not impossible to change funding levels (up or down) and still sufficient robustness around your processes to account for high consequence, low probability events..

I guess the key part of my beef here is the noting that a global pandemic is somehow an “unforeseen event”

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

Plus with medical supplies you could stockpile large amounts and it expires and then you need to replace it all (or should)

Stockpiling manufactured product is useless. These things have a decay rate. You need to be stockpiling instant response changeover of manufacturing sudden supply.

Slightly OT.
The only sporting organisation that specifically took out insurance against a pandemic was Wimbledon.
It happened, they got paid.

Well, the legislative framework was already passed in all states and territories and the Commonwealth before the pandemic ensued. Those legislative instruments set out all sorts of responsibilities and mechanisms to deal with epidemics and pandemics. Including, but not limited to COAG meetings now (for whatever reason) called National Cabinet, health order powers of CMOs etc. It’s worth reading that legislation.

I think the fiscal framework was made up on the run.

transition said:

I was watching some alan jones the other day, a very rare thing for me to do, maybe I was having anervous breakdown or something, anyway he was talking about overpopulation, how it’s a taboo subject (was my interpretation), he was right in my opinion, as recall of what he was saying

there is really a pandemic of humans, is my view

not sure you can have a pandemic of humans but anyway the rate of global population increase is in (and has been for some time now) the decrease.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

Plus with medical supplies you could stockpile large amounts and it expires and then you need to replace it all (or should)

Well, you could have a central warehouse type system which serves both as a stock-pile and a supply centre. Things get stored long term for a while and then before they expire they get sent out to hospitals to use, or they can be donated as foreign aid. But having a centralised system staffed by public servants is kind of the opposite to the privatisation ideal.

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

I was watching some alan jones the other day, a very rare thing for me to do, maybe I was having anervous breakdown or something, anyway he was talking about overpopulation, how it’s a taboo subject (was my interpretation), he was right in my opinion, as recall of what he was saying

there is really a pandemic of humans, is my view

not sure you can have a pandemic of humans but anyway the rate of global population increase is in (and has been for some time now) the decrease.

technically you can’t, but few people would claim to not know exactly what that statement means

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

Systems have to be lean, there is no room for contingency in the budgeting.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

Plus with medical supplies you could stockpile large amounts and it expires and then you need to replace it all (or should)

You shouldn’t stockpile them, as such, what you do is put in a buffer. Always using the oldest stuff and replenishing it with new stuff…

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

It is just not the dominant paradigm at the moment for western democracies. They are more interested in cutting back on spending except for immediate needs, and privatising or contracting out services rather than having standing armies of public servants. It was not seen as important by the politicians of the day to make such preparation and planning.

I’m not sure I understand, I mean it’s not impossible to change funding levels (up or down) and still sufficient robustness around your processes to account for high consequence, low probability events..

I guess the key part of my beef here is the noting that a global pandemic is somehow an “unforeseen event”

It could have been done, but politicians were not convinced to take it seriously enough. Putting in place the necessary planning and preparation costs money.

In their never ending search to make budget savings these things get run down first.

do you also have an inner engine- eye? what about an inner engine-nose? inner engine-heart?

after the whole Y2K thing that turned out to be a fizzer, is it any wonder agencies downplay things that may or may not happen?

How could one not predict a plandemic though it’s not like the scientists haven’t been working on it for years now.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

Before you ask, it was deliberate. ;)

Got me !
PMSL.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I mean, we can now forecast cyclones four months out.

Before you ask, it was deliberate. ;)

Got me !
PMSL.

Glad someone did.

SCIENCE said:

How could one not predict a pandemic though it’s not like the scientists haven’t been working on it for years now.

At about the same time the first case appeared a few months before it became public, I started a thread here asking if it was possible. Just another example of solipsism working.