Skip to content
10% OFF EVERYTHING when you spend £20 - Use Code: RWMAR10 - Must end Wednesday 1st 9am
10% OFF EVERYTHING when you spend £20 - Use Code: RWMAR10 - Ends Wednesday 9am

How to Respond Better to the Next Pandemic

Allen Buchanan

Remedying Institutional Failures

Barcode 9781647691967
Hardback

Original price £45.76 - Original price £45.76
Original price
£45.76
£45.76 - £45.76
Current price £45.76

Click here to join our rewards scheme and earn points on this purchase!

Availability:
Low Stock
FREE shipping

Release Date: 18/06/2024

Genre: Society & Culture
Sub-Genre: Politics & Government
Label: University of Utah Press,U.S.
Series: Tanner Lectures on Human Values
Contributors: Cécile Fabre (Contributions by), Paul Tucker (Contributions by)
Language: English
Publisher: University of Utah Press,U.S.

Remedying Institutional Failures
There is no shortage of criticisms of U.S. COVID-19 policy. This book argues that officials at the highest levels lied or deliberately suppressed relevant information, shamelessly over-sold the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and enacted lock-down policies of unproven value that caused massive economic, educational, and psycho-social damage.
There is no shortage of criticisms of U.S. COVID-19 policy. This book argues that officials at the highest levels lied to the public or deliberately suppressed relevant information, shamelessly over-sold the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and enacted lock-down policies of unproven value that caused massive economic, educational, and psycho-social damage.

In How to Respond Better to the Next Pandemic Allen Buchanan argues that, contrary to widespread opinion, the primary cause of flawed COVID-19 policy was not defective leadership, but rather institutional failure. Decisions were made through processes that lacked the most basic safeguards against the large-institution “yes-man” and group-think phenomena and included virtually no provisions for holding decision makers accountable. More fundamentally, policy makers did not fulfill the crucial duty to provide plausible public justifications for their decisions. They disguised the fact that scientific opinion was divided on the appropriateness of the policies they endorsed and labeled those who disagreed with them as anti-scientific. In some cases, they responded to criticism, not by engaging it on the issues, but by branding their critics as quacks.