Skip to main content

Planning for a COVID-19 Future: A Road Map for Moving to Co-Existence and a Resilient Australian Society

TAGS: COVID-19; resilience; response; transition; recovery; vaccine hesitancy; acceptable risk; trans-science; IRGC; risk assessment; concern assessment; inter-generational equity; sustainable development; public health; information conflicts; health literacy; scientific innovations; vaccination, diffusion, adoption.

       Concern over the appropriate problem-solving pathway for Australia to adopt to effectively address the global COVID-19 pandemic has ignited public controversy and conflict. 

     One media critique of the response in Australia to the pandemic refers to the “lack of balanced analysis of the harm of lockdowns versus the harm of COVID”.

    Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic - caused by different opinions on what scientific information is relevant, different interpretations of the same information or insufficient information - has created scientific information conflicts.

      Any effective future national plan for Australia’s COVID-19 future should be based on two inter-dependent and mutually supporting cornerstones: -

(i)     The plan should resonate with a vision for a resilient Australian society. Resilience is a unifying scientific concept having a long history of application in the management of natural and human systems following disturbance e.g., for human systems, a global pandemic. The concept of resilience is based on two phases having quite different goals: Response to, and recovery from, the disturbance; and

(ii)    Recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly a classic sustainable development problem to resolve - not simply a public health crisis! Sustainable solutions balance public health, economic, social, and cultural impacts and inequalities that have been created by the pandemic.

A conflict management approach to planning for a resilient society,

 in a post-COVID-19 future, is outlined in a 3-part article to follow.

PART 1. Planning for a COVID-19 Future: Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic ~ Information Conflicts and Health Literacy (Posted 04 October 2021)

PART 2.Planning for a COVID-19 Future: Transitioning to Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic ~ Risk Appraisal, Concern Assessment and Vaccine Hesitancy (08 October 2021)

PART 3. Planning for a COVID-19 Future: Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic ~ Co-Existence and Sustainable Development (08 October 2021)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

COMMENT: Australia’s Nuclear Future?

  The recent announcement by the leader of the Federal Liberal National Party for a climate action plan for Australia’s transition to net zero emissions based on seven nuclear plants with a mix of renewables of gas and renewables, has ignited concern and controversy. This is not surprising given the latest independent polling (18 June 2024) on this issue in Australia by the Essential Report  which indicated that: - “People think the best way to achieve our net zero by 2050 target is by developing renewables rather than developing nuclear (63% to 37%) ”. The poll highlighted the reason why public interest environmental controversies continue to ignite conflict when environment/anti-nuclear positions and development/pro-nuclear positions collide. T he unfortunate outcome for the information conflict situation, in this case, is a red corner ~v~ blue corner scenario! Instead, the focus should be on managing the information conflict created by divergent op...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could UNFCCC COP 29 be the Watershed For Finding a Solution to Reduce Emissions Equitably? A Pathway to a Level Playing Field for Reaching Net Zero

    1.0            In 2023, the U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres identified the  “ Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” [ CBDR-RC Principle]  as a key driver for achieving net zero deadlines - subject to a significant condition: “Every country must be part of  the solution. Demanding others move first only ensures humanity comes last”. 2.0            Existing issues that have limited the adoption of the CPDR-RC Principle over time are identified e.g., c onflicts over inequality and competitive advantage; the wide disparity in national contributions of global CO 2 emissions between all countries . 3.0            The article outlines the framework for a level playing field for reducing emissions, equitably, to reach net zero by 2050, based on the linkage be...
Post a Comment
Read more

Resolving Cultural Heritage Protection and Development Conflicts on Indigenous Lands

“ P rotecting cultural heritage and development are not mutually exclusive; we can have both, but projects have to be well-designed.” Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek (2024).   The recent decision by the Federal Environment Minister to shut down a tailings dam for a gold mine development, to protect Indigenous cultural heritage, has ignited controversy and conflict.   The controversy is not only over the decision’s impact on the viability of the Regis Resources’ Gold Mine Project at Orange, Central-Western NSW.  It has also highlighted the complexity of the problem when cultural heritage protection (with its focus on Traditional knowledge) and  development (with its focus on Western science) collide over future land use. There is now  community concern that history may repeat in Australia for development projects proposed on Indigenous owned and controlled lands. However, there would be little dispute that the above statement by ...
Post a Comment
Read more