Jump to content
Alan's Forums

The Contrarian


Recommended Posts

Alan Weiss

Good discussion, thanks everyone, keep it up. I'll return to brevity: There ought to be a focus on "once this is over." It will be "over" in the US sometime later this year. But whenever that is, you don't merely "start the car" again. NOW is the time to think about what the "launch" process has to look like: Whom do you retain or allow to leave? What products and services need to be created, altered, dumped? If you think it's back to "business as usual" you'll be behind the curve. You can certainly work in those issues remotely with a good coach/expert.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin Berchelmann
13 hours ago, ColleenFrancis said:

I can't be sure the WHO offered them "for sale to the US" but that's not the point.

Colleen, I'm sorry, but that's exactly the point. We can be sure, by using the WHO's own words. When, instead of solutions, we seek to blame, accuracy becomes paramount. Otherwise defensive postures emerge, we politicize unnecessarily and nothing gets done. It was also "widely reported," as you mentioned, that the US was offered test kits and declined them. Joe Biden even mentioned it in the debate. It's utterly false, and creates a narrative that sows distrust among those responsible for these things, like the CDC. In times of crisis, that trust is essential. Accuracy in comments, then, become equally essential.

Sorry to soapbox, but I think these small things, left unchecked, turn into repeated "facts," just as you repeated them here Those, in turn, result in arguments around narrative instead of solutions to crises.

But that's just me...

KB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ColleenFrancis

I get your point, and it's right.

Broadly speaking, this issue of testing access is one example of where I see globalization working in the US favor instead of isolation. Had the CDC been interested in participating in the testing protocol with the rest of the world, they would have had working  tests much more quickly. This would have helped determine the severity of the issue and perhaps allowed states to take action more quickly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin Berchelmann
7 hours ago, ColleenFrancis said:

Had the CDC been interested in participating in the testing protocol with the rest of the world, they would have had working  tests much more quickly.

I think that's 100% accurate. And it's a "way of being," not an independent decision. Apparently, the CDC historically never gets on board with these things driven by the WHO, instead wanting to "do it our way" on all things health-related. This coronavirus simply exposed the problem with that thinking. It's blind luck that we haven't been bitten by that process before now.

Hopefully, we'll adopt a different approach going forward.

In fact, I'm hoping there's a lot of lessons learned when the dust settles. So many people described a severe virus as an impending threat for so many years... I don't know if it's simple hubris or large-scale denial that prevented more preparation.

KB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugh Blane

Andrew, excellent list of priorities for clients. Thank you!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stacy Sifleet

Alan - If this is a huge overreaction, I'm curious what you think an appropriate response would have been?  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Weiss

Stacy, first you reassure the public, you don't keep frightening the public. Second, you formulate a national response, not a state-by-state, or even city-by-city response. You make plans for citizens to return home from abroad through chartered flights. You isolate elder care facilities tight.

I believe you keep as many people at work as safely as possible. The fear and panic are heightened by money problems and the inability to see loved ones. You learn from facts, not fancy. If the critical mass was reached and passed in China, unprepared, in three months, why would it last in the US for 18 months, the current crazed worst case?

And you accentuate the good news at least as much as the bad. The huge preponderance of people will be fine, whether they have the disease or not. Vaccines are in research, medical equipment is being manufactured, people are recovering. Huge benefits are being granted as I'm seeing, fighting for the life of the ballet: Unemployment being processed in record numbers with guarantees of payment; mortgage payments suspended without penalty; loan servicing suspended without penalty; small business loans being granted with highly favorable terms; IRS payments extended without penalty; free meals and computers provided for students; cash being sent to every American within the parameters  (they're not sending me any!). 

On top of that, we need some reality about the market. What we're seeing is volatility, not normal trading. We were actually due for volatility, given an unprecedented, ten-year, furious growth in the US. We just didn't expect the volatility to come from a pandemic. This isn't adequately explained to people. That's why I'm trying to discourage people on the Forums from quoting their Uncle Joe, or a cousin in city government, or their dermatologist. 

I'll stop here, and I haven't posted this to argue about responsiveness, but to try to simply answer your question. People are afraid of ambiguity, they're afraid of being afraid. Those causes can be eliminated, but the media right now are feeding into them. I swear to God, I want to punch David Muir in his breathless face and tear the false eyelashes off the glammed-up doctor they've decided to use as their medical expert every night who says exactly nothing. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Stacy Sifleet

Alan - appreciate this.  I think being able to trust our news and having consistent news despite which party you lean towards would be helpful as well.  The whole fake news trend I believe adds to the fear and panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Weiss

At 6:30, in a few minutes, I'll be watching the breathless David Muir, to keep learning about how absolutely manipulative the news is. He wants to get an Emmy, that's his goal. But this ain't journalism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...