[makomk]

Not only was the UK considered to have some of the best pandemic planning in the world prior to Covid hitting, there was pretty aggressive contact tracing and testing here early on, based as you'd expect on what the UK did to keep SARS and MERS out. The elephant in the room here seems to be Italy, which appears to have been reporting zero cases up until the point somewhere in the rough ballpark of 1% of their population was infected. This kind of early contact tracing and testing just doesn't work if you have no idea who to test or trace the contacts of, and being a major travel hub next door to a country with massive undetected community spread seems pretty fatal. Now, the UK did end up abandoning contact tracing around the time of the first lockdown, but that was long after it had already clearly failed.

[iso1631]

Letting all the schoolkids and leafy surrey familes off on their ski holidays to Italy in Feb half term (15th-23rd) was probably one early bad decision, how much different that would have made in the mid term, but closing borders was never on the cards for any country - closing heathrow was unthinkable even in mid March.

New Zealand borders closed on 19 March 2020. Based on deaths and IFR at that time, there were likely 150,000 new cases a day in the UK on 19th March. Closing borders then wasn't going to stop the spread.

Maybe a strict lockdown after the Feb half term and a total closure of all borders - including lorry drivers, could have worked.

Would it be worth it? The age-standardised mortality rate for the UK in 2020 was 1,043.50 per 100k, the highest since....

2008, when it was 1,091.90 per 100k. That wasn't an anomoly either - every year from 1990 to 2008 was higher. Even ignoring ages, the crude mortality rate per 100k was higher for every year before 2003.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Not only was the UK considered to have some of the best pandemic planning in the world prior to Covid hitting

While that is true, the UK "was considered" as such, both of those little words are key, especially _was_. This misperception has been overtaken by reality.

[makomk]

This feels like circular logic. The countries which did better of course did so because they had the best pandemic planning, and we know they had the best pandemic planning because they did better.

[jonathanstrange]

Do you have any other suggestions on how to evaluate pandemic planning other than by the effects of putting those plans into action? "a priori"?

[makomk]

Actually, this seems to be the dirty secret of pandemic planning - as far as I can tell, there really doesn't seem to be a good way to evaluate how effective specific policies are. Even for established diseases and measures, like closing schools during a flu pandemic, the evidence is vague and contradictory.

Coming to conclusions about how good countries' pandemic planning is based on how well they've done is even less meaningful, because it doesn't even attempt to deal with confounding factors or simple luck. It's certainly very suspicious that so many Covid-19 success stories were in the same geographic Asia-Pacific area, despite having very different cultures, policies and measures.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Actually, this seems to be the dirty secret of pandemic planning - as far as I can tell, there really doesn't seem to be a good way to evaluate how effective specific policies are.

Before an actual pandemic, that may be somewhat true. although some measures are blatantly counterproductive, e.g https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/13/boris-johnso...

An actual disaster though, is a "can't fake it" test of disaster preparedness.

So you agree with what I said here prior evaluations were overtaken by events? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27290252

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Are you arguing for the opposite - i.e. that the pandemic planning was actually great, despite the terrible way that the pandemic was handled?