When talking about measures to prevent crises, there are a lot aspects to look at. Yesterday there was a lecture on models of how an influenza pandemic would progress and how there could be a chance to stop one, if a number of conditions are satisfied (want more info? let me know). What struck me is that a number of measures that can help cost a lot of money, whilst an equal number of measures that don't help, don't cost that much and may also, seperate from monetary issues, be more emotionally appealing. With modern politics, money is always a tricky one. Aparently (I don't have a reliable source) the Dutch government isn't stockpiling vaccines as there is a fair chance that it would be the wrong one (these viruses mutate, recombine, etc., possibly rendering vaccines useless). It should be noted, however, that even a poorly matched vaccine can already lead to a great enough benefit, if more people get the vaccine. The latter is more likely, as a matched vaccine will take almost to long to develop, and definitely to long to produce and immunise enough people. Anyway, my point is:
With modern politics the goal increasingly seems to be to take measures that have a direct and visible (and hence usually short term, worry about the future later) effect. In the case of averting crisis, there is no visible effect - that's the whole point, take action to avoid nasty effects of something. So crisis avertion is an expensive item with no visible effect. Not so popular with some governments I would imagine. They want visible effect, and they can get it this way - crisis happens, and is a visible effect.
Oh, and how does Bush want to tackle the problem? By using the military of course! Noboby is entirely sure what he has in mind (hints that sound nearly convincing on CNN), but let's hope we don't have to find out. (Congress squashed the request anyhow).
With modern politics the goal increasingly seems to be to take measures that have a direct and visible (and hence usually short term, worry about the future later) effect. In the case of averting crisis, there is no visible effect - that's the whole point, take action to avoid nasty effects of something. So crisis avertion is an expensive item with no visible effect. Not so popular with some governments I would imagine. They want visible effect, and they can get it this way - crisis happens, and is a visible effect.
Oh, and how does Bush want to tackle the problem? By using the military of course! Noboby is entirely sure what he has in mind (hints that sound nearly convincing on CNN), but let's hope we don't have to find out. (Congress squashed the request anyhow).
1 comment:
That's not just something characteristic of modern politics, though... (not being a politician, I would even go so far as to say it is what defines politics)
Post a Comment