Thank you for the conversationI want to thank the Secretary, the Department and staff for taking the initiative to reach out to the public in this way. Blogs have a tendency to encourage informal two-way conversations, which can sometimes pose a challenge to those used to polished, one-way institutional communication. And this is a good thing! Ultimately people want to feel that they are being treated like real human beings, not just faceless citizens to whom government messages can be broadcast. We want to feel like we know our leaders, that they know us, and we want to be treated with respect. We want to be trusted with truthful information so that we can make the best decisions for ourselves, our families, and our communities. I hope the Department looks at this experiment not only as a new way to communicate with the public, but also as a way to enable real conversations with real people. The threat we face from pandemic flu is real, and I believe the best preparedness will come out of two-way conversations, not just one-way communication, when people are armed with complete and honest information. And also a big thank you to all the people who took the time to read the posts and to add their comments. Your participation made this experiment a real conversation, and I think sent a clear message that given the right information and support, private citizens are ready to take a primary role in preparing for a pandemic.
Comments |
Add to Technorati
Add to del.icio.us
Thanks, Pierre! I’m sorry you couldn’t come in person, but you are so right about the conversation and its importance.
We are real and we do want real responses. Now, with 300 million people in the country (and additional readers from all over the world), you can’t always expect a personal response, but as you well know, there’s ways to make people understand that you are listening… and ways to show that you are not)
Let’s hope for more of the former and less of the latter.
Posted June 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pmMr. Omidyar,
Thank you and the others for posting. This is more than a government /citizen problem. This will be a business / citizen problem as well.
At times some did not feel like they where being heard. That the posts meant more to other posters like PFI folks or Boone or FluWiki. In the past a letter to my state representative, another state rep or even the president generated a form letter response.
Here there was not even a form letter however Admiral Agwunobi let us know we where heard.
Just in the short time this blog has been on line the WHO has confirmed 8 more H5N1 cases and 5 deaths.
Sources: May: www.who.int/csr/dise…
June: www.who.int/csr/dise…
I remember how HIV /AIDS started out slow. We thought we could control it. It was a private matter. I hope many more are paying attention to H5N1.
There is still so much to do and talk about. I truly hope these posts have made a difference.
Mr. Omidyar one thing I learned while volunteering at a blood drive today is how separated large business or groups can be.
1) Red Cross blood collection is separate branch from the Red Cross disaster group.
2) Pandemic Red Cross and WHO information where meet with a cold response. Papers would be read later.
3) DoD pandemic planning manual got a warm response. How? She took three steps to the copier before I said “This is your copy.” They immediately started reading the book.
What I learned was large organizations have separate branches and a feeling of turf area. Not turf war but “that is their area, not mine.” Hence “they” or that department worry about pandemics and I worry about my area.
Second - Government seal of approval carries weight.
Still no word on blood collections during a pandemic.
Some virus - like colds - and traits like sickle cell are not transmitter through blood. No word on H5N1.
My *opinion* is that H5N1 is like malaria, mad cow, AIDS, etc and can be. That is my *opinion*.
Regards,
Kobie
Fact:
Adult has 11 pints of blood
Newborn have just under one.
Overheard today:
Posted June 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmQ: how many pints are in the body
A: The three pints I had at the bar.
Q: How many pints of *blood* are in the body
A: All of them :o) you got some funny people out there
I want to suggest that while feeling better about how we are treated and whether we are included is important to our levels of trust and compliance, I also believe the best preparedness will come when both the people and the government are armed with complete and honest information.
Without more two-way conversations with the people, our governments will lack critical information necessary for the functioning of their well documented plans.
If the government walks away from this experience with the idea (often held) that their real goal is to make us feel like we are ‘in the loop’ without actually placing us ‘in the loop’ their plans will almost assuredly be fatally flawed (figuratively and literally). And the cost for elevating surface over substance will be high if the pandemic comes to call.
For many who commented on the lack of response by the governmental participants here, the root of their frustration was the fear that efforts like this are no more than window dressing.
It is a fear that if the focus is on greasing the squeaky wheel, some folks may feel better, but our preparedness and response plans will not be better - and our chances of mitigating damage to ourselves and our country will not become better.
This concern is based on a firm belief that our response to a pandemic - on both a personal and community level - can be significantly improved not only from the sharing but also from the testing of ideas in the conceptual marketplace.
We hope the government would share that view.
If we talk about participation as the exchange of information only so the public can be better informed, we may open the lines but in the process inadvertently set a goal of jumping only half-way over the gap.
Posted June 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm