Before getting into this I feel the need to state that I am not expert. However, given that ignorance hasn’t gotten in the way of many others offering views on our current predicament, I feel no less entitled to share mine.

Last night – by chance - I watched BBC Question Time followed by the second part of the Sky Documentary series covering the Challenger disaster. Whilst I hadn’t expected to connect the two, I found myself thinking about the parallels as the presentation progressed.

The Question Time debate was characterised by very different opinions on the response to Covid-19. Whilst the politicians seemed committed to the view that Covid-19 was a risk to everyone and thereby necessitated a response that made best efforts to safeguard everyone e.g. test access for all, the entrepreneur and epidemiologist were of the view that our limited resources should be directed towards the most vulnerable, and everyone else (the majority of the population) should respect safeguarding measures but otherwise get back to “normal”. Whilst I found these arguments – and the statistics to support them - compelling, it seems to me that throughout the response to date, there has been very little space to consider views that challenge the mass safeguarding approach. This is not a criticism of the Scottish or UK administrations. Rather it is an observation that there seems little evidence from anywhere in the world that the lessons being learned about the nature of the virus are being taken account of due to momentum behind the mass safeguarding strategy. If there is good reason for this, I’ve yet to see a balanced argument that sets this position within a broader socio-economic context and clearly details why this is the way to go. In the absence of this, I fear that we will have cause to regret the unintended consequences, not least of which will be increasing fatalities arising from the suppressed capacity to address other ailments.

The events leading up to the Challenger disaster seem to me to have some similar characteristics to those detailed above. For some time, those driving the programme were well aware that there was a considerable risk that o-ring failure within the booster rockets could lead to catastrophic failure. As the programme progressed, evidence that the engineering was flawed was set aside due to momentum. Live with the flaw. Do what is expected. At some point we’ll find a fix. Whatever we do, let’s not admit we got it wrong and that a fundamental re-think is required !

That’s where the parallel thought entered my mind !!

Are we now conditioned to expect mass safeguarding with all of the scaling challenges that this will bring ? Are our administrators simply responding to what they think we expect (whilst still claiming to be guided by the science) ? Are we hanging our hopes on a vaccine ? Are we prepared to challenge the strategy, accept that there might be a better path and admit that we got it wrong if that proves to be the case ? As I indicated in my intro, I am not an expert in these matters. However, I do know a little bit about strategy, the importance of refinement based on changing circumstances and the need for leaders to admit when they have gotten it wrong and change path. I very much hope that momentum and “group-think” won’t drive us to an outcome that we will deeply regret for generations to come. There are lessons that we can learn from elsewhere, despite the link not being obvious.