The greatest evil

Is done in the name of the best intention (Burke et al) , Governments who fail to accept this risk are most prone to commit us to it. Post Christian myth makers in the West who,  by their own new definition,  deny most of the sources of human evil  , or make new doctrines about who and what , are most prone to miss the point and cause disaster ( To have closed down business for 6 months for no decreases in the mortality rate would be a disaster ; were the told of that risk and did they take as Che-ifs that advice ?) Any leaders wh tries to blame nture for evil needs to be carfeul - its not how many of us see nature  .Collective Evil refers to something men can be part of ( for good or ill)   
Governments who fail to accept that it always costs the public to effectively deal with danger are the most dangerous. If the said government is not paying for the consequences they create ( however well intentioned , were they well informed reactionary or of their own initiative?  
In other words if decisions are not made with  all cost effective considerations ( real care) then the care  ( and even discipline ) offered will be superficial and self righteous and likely to fail; likely to create many adverse consequences ( externalities ) that don't make sense  long term  ( eg no change to the mortality rate long term) This applies not only to people but the whole ecosystem elements  involved. 

All ecosystem elements play their part in creating risk , the one thing we can do well or badly is dealing well with the human risk first - the natural elements with the same custodial wisdom   The West used to do  well to educate about risk and balance : that with prosecution based on taught simple laws ( not ones introduced for the time;; By contrast many governments of the moment have no commitment to education , believing men are determined and need incentives to act we assume  well or badly,  This heresy of raw power is unsustainable because while compliance can be obtained,  the cost and the lost opportunity cost of sound cooperation via understanding is lost 
( the Andrews government have not sought to explain how his idea of high levels of testing is mediating the progress of the disease. ) 

Governments who don't believe in evil incarnate are most  likely to miss the source and be largely  ineffective in dealing with it .  They create corruption commissions when their own arrogance and ignorance is the real reason they have the incompetent working with them ) . Such governments propensity to tyranny derives from their denial of the source of even their own  evil ( eg lack of confession ) Evil includes them because all people are prone to projecting evil onto others .
Leaders are not gods and for them to act as if they are and do  know what to do ( God like ) is often for them to be wrong in motivation - not right as they perceive or acting with righteous authority
This bad habit common in some , shows itself in a crisis when the normal consequences of wrong decisions are more likely to mount up and can't be covered up as easily .
Humility in a crisis means working together at a national level ( State level CMO should quietly support the Chief)  )  Getting the numbers down is largely Daniel's idea and it maybe a very shallow idea in the context in which he has prosecuted it  , Its a wildly infectious virus  and second waves spoken of without explaining what hey mean , We have a plan .   
When something the government decides to do is not working (know quite normal) they can either admit it or get fanatical and tell us only things they want us to know ( that deaths are increasing) 
The government ( incl National )  are not telling us what we need/want to know ( ratio of tests to cases ) and why high titre doesn't mean high herd immunity and antigen buildup for people in enclosed spaces, skin and other bioaerosol levels

 A good government would try to explain whether / when /why/what sort  a solution a vaccine a likely , whether the virus will go away , whether there is any evidence of herd immunity and why the flattening of  the curve is not evidence of developing immunity  .Currently  curve talk just cases confusion and high number preoccupation will not convince epidemiologists.  

Governments who see themselves largely as doers of good ( cf Doers of what works sustainably ) can fail to accept that it always costs to effectively deal with danger and such leadership simpleton ideas are most dangerous , Idealists must weigh up the cost benefit of their actions or not be in Parliament .  

With a genuine crisis mistakes will be made , leaders who fully support the hidden system in a crisis are unlikely to ever be culpable . Leaders who don't actually support the integration of information up to and down to the Chief  are culpable,

If anyone thinks wannabes are not prone to being seen as public authors of solutions ( even in a crisis) is not being realistic. No one should judge error until its over,  but all should check for potential for error , as in such threats,  few if any know what to do .  Confession time ????