Covid 19 leadership crisis: Doing things differently?

I don’t want to go in the abstract realm. The origins of the coronavirus are from the human-engineered viral labs, and they unleashed this as part of the global biowarfare. I have covered the lackadaisical response of WHO earlier and it was clearly found wanting in its duties to warn off the governments earlier. They refused to classify as a pandemic (with often severe side effects) and staved off the responsibility.

However, it is instructive to look at the leadership goals. While I don’t agree with the following HBR article completely, they offer a fascinating insight which I feel is a key takeaway.

What should a great leader do in such a crisis? We believe that the right approach with the Covid-19 pandemic would have been to draw on all the relevant, epistemic knowledge of epidemiologists, virologists, pathologists, pharmacologists, and more — but to ensure that the scope of the problem was understood as broader than their focus. The tendency of the epistemic habit of mind is to go narrow, into pockets of science where it is possible to arrive at absolute, can’t-be-otherwise answers.

The right approach would have been to factor those contributions into what was understood from the outset to be a sprawling, complex system of a challenge that would also call on holistic thinking and values-balancing decisions.

If leaders had from the outset framed the pandemic as a crisis that would demand the highest level of political and ethical judgment, and not just scientific data and discovery, then decision-makers at all levels would not have found themselves so paralyzed — regarding, for example, mask mandates, prohibitions on large gatherings, business closures and re-openings, and nursing home policies — when testing results proved so challenging to collect, compile, and compare.

Even as healthcare providers, we had to look at some “authentic source of information” before the imposition of expensive lockdowns and resultant damage to the economy that has devastated a vast majority of the countries. That source of information was wanting (under China’s control, nonetheless) and should ideally be tried for war crimes against the humanity. I don’t think that the offending country and the complicit role of WHO should be allowed to foster with no oversight.