Is this the pandemic too many agents, actors and individuals wanted, resulting in many using the wrong plan for the 'threat'?

In modern times (the past 25 years), there has been much discussion, conjecture, research and activity around old, new and emerging health and wellness threats that impact locations, countries, regions and plausibly the entire planet. 

Localised threats and outbreaks expanded to include epidemics and then epidemics morphed and/or expanded to include pandemics. 

'Pandemic preparedness' was then promoted, pushed and amplified by experts, salespeople, governments and peak bodies alike. 

Much money exchanged hands in the name of research, plans, preparedness, stockpiling, response and 'resilience'.

What was once the exclusive remit of the World Health Organisation (WHO) was now the apparent responsibility of transnational and multinational corporations. 

Western and democratic governments soon followed suit as their citizens, voters and politicians advised, urged and pushed for prudent and plausible 'pandemic preparedness' and planning. 

Many others, including large domestic companies, local governments and communities were compelled or obligated to follow suit and make similar plans or contribute to the larger conversation or preparedness. 

None of this activity was unified, consolidated, centrally informed or even universally agreed upon in advance. 

At times, it was a measure of the 'have's' and the 'have nots' with many social, cultural, class, ethnicity and wealth discriminations permeating assumptions, decisions and subsequent plans. 

Historical facts and references changed and morphed to meet the 'narrative of the day' or sought to reveal the 'hot buttons' that compelled people to buy, act and support the random opinions and recommendations. 

Big brands pushed the agenda and also financed the movement and at times, frenzy. 

Governments were then compelled to act, shamed into joining the melee or simply identified the requirement to act in the interest of public health and well being. 

Most now had 'a plan' or one they could get access to 'if needed' or could be downloaded from the internet given the commercialisation and commodification of the issue. 

Pandemic plans were now like website designs. 

Templated, prepackaged and available for wholesale purchase requiring only a few 'tweaks' and modifications to localise and contextualise the plan. 

Insert name of <company>, <department> and <country> here kind of thing. 

Many multinational companies and governments now had almost identical plans (just like the oil spill plans so many shared prior to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster) but didn't know it or failed to check.

The threat was never the same. 

Apes, bats, pigs, chickens, cows, sex and invisible pathogens became transient and variable threat actors. 

HIV/AIDs primed the world and informed or scared a generation.

Significant bias, judgement and polarising views were established. 

Biased and racial health threats followed. 

Asian Flu and Hong Kong flu helped divide and categorise threat locations and entire ethnic groups. 

Modern awareness and more politically correct terms emerged. 

SARS...this is it, the big one!

Get ready.

But it wasn't.

Then came a series of technical confusions. 

H1N1 is the next "global killer".

Oops, it's a virus, so it mutates and changes. 

H5N1 is the next "global killer".

Just like the latest software version, update and operating system, we all got confused and lost as to which codified threat was the most recent or most deadly. 

We went back to blaming animals. 

Bird flu. 

Swine flu.

Then back to geographical and ethnic classifiers. 

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

Then onto another "them" and "us" version...

Ebola. 

All the while, the same "history", plans, models, education and data was being used to explain, clarify, prioritise and lead 'evidence-based' decision making. 

Multipurpose and interchangeable facts, figures, advice and research to suit the narrative of the day. 

None-the-less, you now have a global community, governments, multinationals, vendors and experts all on a 'hair-trigger', just itching for the day they can activate their plan, save the day, justify the expenditure or step into the limelight. 

Many, consciously or subconsciously, have wanted an event or series of seemingly related events to make a pandemic transition from a past or theoretical event to an actual event. 

Hollywood has helped keep the awareness and fear alive too. 

Many movies have been made on the various threats or the issue, often with fantastic visuals or bright red 'projections' engulfing a country, region or the entire globe.

Vivid red is especially effective as it invoke association with blood and even 'flows' like blood at times in the simulations. 

Personally, I have been writing, developing, contributing, reviewing, editing, simulating and evaluating 'pandemic plans' for at least the past 15 years. 

As a result, this summary is more extracts from my own journal, direct observations, extracts from various plans and scenarios and a 'catch-up' for those who have recently joined the growing tribe of 'experts', advisors, specialists, journalist, bloggers and 'social influencers'. 

However, this longitudinal consideration and commentary are necessary. 

Far too many 'plans' have deeply concealed or undeclared bias, heuristics, assumptions, flaws, correlations or 'facts' that are not only not relevant but significantly outdated.

The 'go-to plan' for many agents, actors and individuals are for the wrong threat, a modified version of a different threat or a hybrid of both. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the 'narratives' are expressed from varying perspectives or through the lens of various professional and scientific paradigms. 

Making broad associations between historical events such as Spanish Flu (another bias classification) and modern-day threats in the total absence of modifying factors such as electricity, penicillin, motor vehicles, airconditioning, mobile phones or the internet is indicative of a lack of adequate investigative or analytical research and evaluation. 

The same applies when making sweeping comparisons between countries, 'data' and communities. 

China, Italy and the US have little in common. 

Source: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/china,italy,the-usa/

Conflating complex, diverse and networked issues into pure numbers (tainted by 'actual tested' versus those 'not yet tested'/general population) between countries is flawed and misleading. 

Comparing political, commercial and community response is equally inconsistent and problem-laden. 

Significantly varied and different weather patterns, climate and seasons are a factor in localised health and communicable disease calculations or projections, conspicuously absent from many recent comparisons.

No one is using the exact same data, plan, assumptions or version so direct comparisons are statistically and scientifically questionable. 

For a growing number of individuals, departments, governments and companies, they are now not managing a pandemic but rather the recent and future decisions made by others; sometimes related to a medical threat or pandemic. 

Your best-laid plans, assumptions and preparations are affected if not derailed by another entity making a decision before you or contradictory to your plan and projections. 

Economic war by means of pandemic or health scare initiatives is proving to be very cost-effective. 

If public schools were created to produce public servants and are primarily funded and governed by that State, using their open/closure rates as a metric is highly questionable and flawed. 

There are likely more cases of head-lice in many schools, yet it is not tallied and reported daily, nor is it broadcast around the world as a comparable metric. 

Failing to adequately understand, account for or anticipate these and many other factors are contributing to confusion, delays and circular decision making. 

Therefore, it is neither evidence nor risk-based decision making. 

Slow down your thinking and process and reconsider your primary influences, assumptions and 'facts'. 

You may find a significant volume of those that 'want' a pandemic to be real, now and this health issue. 

Moreover, you may discover that your thinking, plans and decisions are extracts from the wrong, unrelated or outdated plans of the past. 

If nothing else, perhaps you and others will take a broader, more critical view of current events, responses and actions to better inform your decision making and resilience. 

Tony Ridley

Enterprise Security Risk Management and Security Science