Not an unreasonable estimate., Until we have test, test, test and isolate in place, we should not be talking about easing lockdown -> Removing all lockdown restrictions by summer ‘could lead to another 130,000 deaths’ - independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
X : When do you think the pandemic will be over?
Me : I thought 18 months back in March last year, based upon test, test, test and isolate with adaptive suppression etc -
... but we didn't do that, so we are where we are.
X : You didn't answer the question.
Me : I would be delighted and pleasantly surprised if this pandemic is over before the next election. I expect us to ease lockdown too early again and then continue to repeat mistakes. I take a view that we should adapt to a long haul.
X : That's a ridiculous position.
Me : That's also what I was told about "18 months" approximately 11 months ago. No-one says that now about "18", it's more "you're pessimistic".
I've adjusted my view based upon our policies and actions. What do you adjust your view on?
I'd rather us take a view of this will take years (for many the consequences will be much longer and then there's the loss of family) and then we can have discussions of the form "if we extend lockdown, it may help reduce the years by ..." rather than the current narrative.
I'm very uncomfortable with all the "getting back to normal" narrative because the economy will not be the same, we will have to adapt and our society needs that "Me" vs "We" discussion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Do you have definitions for that doctrine table?
Me : Sure.
Common language : Make sure that everyone who is discussing the issue uses a language that is common to all.
Challenge Assumptions : Take assumptions and challenge them.
... are you serious?
Doctrine is a list of universally useful patterns from mapping. Their application requires thought. This is not a checklist tickbox exercise. So, no ... I don't provide a definition and that's deliberate. I want you to think not blindly follow.
X : So what about "focus on user needs".
Me : What about it? I want you to think about user needs.
X : But how do I distinguish between needs and wants?
Me : I win ... to ask that question means you must now be thinking about user needs.
One of these days we will finally get rid of the idea that the market knows best. It belongs in the dustbin of history alongside the trickle down effect. The market has contexts in which it works, in other cases nationalised services run better ->
X : I don't understand maps. Can you explain this a bit more.
Me : Like a story?
X : Sure
Me : Hang on. Keeping it simplistic, there are about 1,500 permutations of components and concepts in that map, at 25 words each then about 90 pages of text. Hmmm, no.
I don't disagree but it's much deeper than this. The debate has been about the balance between "Me" and "We", between the ethics of care vs the ethics of choice, between the collective's control and the agency of the individual ... it's all about the balance of power.
In light of this, in light of the culture map, in light of the balance of power from "power over" the people versus "power to" the people ... I now realise that we are not and have never been ready for democracy. We should shift to a system of random selection for all leaders.
X : Demarchy?
Me : Yes, a system of sortition. A vote can be held at the end of their term of service but the question should be whether the person is offered a position within the civil service or is allowed freely to rejoin society or is ostracised.
X : Thoughts on China is coming due for a counterculture revolution ala the 60s here?
Me : If we think about the balance of "Me vs We" in a culture then ...
... I suspect we're in danger of applying the cultural norms of our collective to another collective and assuming it will react as our collective has reacted. We are probably being myopic ...
... as an alternative, China may well tackle issues of inequality whilst simultaneously growing a more vibrant and meritocratic economy. Rather than a counterculture in the East, a counterculture in the West (against the systemic inequality) seems to be something we're ignoring.
X : We want to be agile.
Me : Do you mean "We want to learn Agile methods such as XP" or "We want to increase the agility of our organisation"?
X : Is there a difference?
Me : Huge. Agile is a method whilst Agility comes from many things including applying appropriate methods.
X : Many things?
Me : Yes. Here's a handy table of universally useful patterns. Do all of these and you'll have more agility as an organisation.
X : That means Agile?
Me : You may well be using XP in some places and SCRUM etc.
X : Surely it's simpler to just use Agile everywhere?
Me : That won't bring you agility, it'll bring you frustration, inefficiency and a mess.
The Tao (the way, the purpose)
The Earth (the terrain, the landscape)
The Heaven (the seasons, the climate)
The Laws (the doctrine)
The General (the leadership)
I'd just like to make the point, that mapping the landscape is not a "technology" activity ... mapping is useful in any competitive space whether economics, nation state play, scientific knowledge or cultural systems.
So, when you tell me that you're on the "business" side, what you're actually telling me is "I'm in a business that doesn't understand or learn from our landscape".
I don't know if that is bravado or supposed to impress me because I just think you're muppets for the taking.