It is remarkably consistent in meta studies of disasters, as the crisis goes on, explanation and message are refined and become more targeted, simply because more is known and what does not work is discarded. It seems here is the exception, and the message is more muddled. 
This would occur if the disaster were treated as a political problem rather than a logistical or strategic one; the dog wagging the cart, so to speak. The political need leads the response; inevitable announcements are delayed, or attempts made to soften the factual basis.
The political tends to see strength in conformity; steady as she goes, business as usual; let nothing spoil the party. A crisis tend to be non-conforming and demands non-conformist reponses. That's a definition of any crisis born of disaster; it's not business as usual.
Conformist politics thrives on offering sugar hits from sweet promises of never ending reward: axing taxes, jobs and growth, back in black; always more of the same, only better. A disaster is apolitical. It doesn't promise, it delivers. Responding means abandoning promises.
It also often means abandoning ideology. For a rigid conformist gmnt, short on technically complex policy frameworks and with a distaste for structural bureaucracy and the concomitant class of detailed belt and braces planning types, this means confusion as complexity clashes...
with simplistic expectations.
@threadreaderapp #unroll unroll me please
