The Corona Threat
Richard J Aitch
Protective Security & Close Protection Specialist | Global Head of Security & Estates Management | 30 Years, 60 Countries, 6 Continents | Best Selling Author
‘Risk exists where the future is unknown’
‘Security measures must be commensurate with the threat’.
Risk and the management of it remains the central factor concerning the aims of protective security including that of personal security. The two statements above are commonly used in the management of risk. Risk does exist where the future is unknown but it also exists where the future IS known. Risk exists as a constant presence, as do those assessed threats. As in close protection, it is impossible to determine the correct type and degree of protection unless the type and degree of threat have been established. Once the potential for harm has been evaluated, a determination must be made as to what resources and actions are necessary to control those risks. Where possible, the avoidance of risk is preferred. We do not over-react or underreact. Over-reaction and under-reaction are almost invariably the results of knee-jerk responses. They come from a lack of planning, a failure to anticipate and prepare for an event. The inability to predict the future contributes to risk. However, even though the threat and the risk of exposure to that threat are assessed, the potential remains for incidents to arise. This is not due to a lack of forethought in planning or an incorrect assessment of the threats and risks posed, but because the chance of probability remains, no matter how slight or diminutive.
People who refuse to accept threats such as the Coronavirus will, by default, expose themselves to a greater degree than someone who responds to risk, implements avoidance to risk thereby reduces their exposure to risk. People who make a comparison to statistical deaths of influenza, road deaths or starvation do not make any assessment as to the risk to the threat of contracting the virus. The combination of an effective response in terms of reducing exposure through implementing avoidance and preparing for by-product knock-on effects to infrastructure will be best prepared.
React to what you see, to what you hear in your immediate area. No response through a 'bullish' reaction of claiming 'media-hype' will be the first to fall.
Intelligence Analyst @ Google︱SRMC®(A)
4y"People who refuse to accept threats such as the Coronavirus will, by default, expose themselves to a greater degree than someone who responds to risk, implements avoidance to risk thereby reduces their exposure to risk." When in doubt, play it safe. The nature of this virus is still largely unknown and attempts to uses models for threat projection at this point are delusive. In respect to a rapidly spreading severe disease, raw accuracy in one's decision-making ought not to be the point when a single false negative can be fatal. This is the type of threat were being on the safe side comes with a negligible cost compared to the cost of failure. Predictions really don't count here. Risk solutions for a black swan can really only account for payoffs. Having said all that, one area of this threat that one's risk assessments can be entirely 'rational' about would be societal behaviour monitoring. Italy is currently providing us with valuable real-time information concerning the behaviour of crowds under quarantine conditions across all social sectors.
Founder, Global Executive Medicine | Former White House Medical Officer Committed to Shaping the Future of Travel Medical Assistance Excellence | Pioneering Disruptive & Innovative Executive Health Services Worldwide
4yI agree with the benefits of appropriately conducting a risk assessment and implementing mitigating measures. In the case of this current public health threat, the message should be of reassurance and education not cause hysteria. According to CDC and WHO mitigating measures for reducing the risk of infection for both Influenza and Corona virus are the same. “People who make a comparison to statistical deaths of influenza, road deaths or starvation do not make any assessment as to the risk to the threat of contracting the virus” Statistical comparison with a virus like influenza is valuable in educating the public, and your protection teams and should not be dismissed. The same precautionary measures apply to both. The opportunity to bring awareness to a virus that claims approx. 30,000 lives in the US alone every year (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html ) should be capitalized on.
Security Manager, TV+ Production at Apple
4yI have to somewhat agree with the hype aspect of this, and there are a few expert opinions who tend to agree floating about. Even with generous projections, the death toll in the US (my focus right now living here and all) is unlikely to come close to the 18k flu deaths the US suffered last year, and to broadly the same vulnerable demographics. Now, having said that this is a new thing so there are unknowns, absolutely, and due caution must of course be exercised.