Every first year student in a natural or social science class is taught the basics of a valid description of the empirical data. But in the case of COVID-19, all kinds of case data are thrown around without regard to the reference population, alpha error (false positive results), expected base fatality rates, etc.

Even more deplorable then seems to be the blind belief of leaders to accept this kind of mis-representation at face value. The incessant media shouting “another 100 fatalities” just creates panic and is devoid of any meaning.

A simple solution would be to educate decision makers in stats 101. This goes back to the fundamentals that Dr. Drucker and Dr. Deming demanded.

In my opinion we need diversity of experts. People with deep knowledge in different fields. Creating the space where those people can consent to a plan and make it happen is what leadership is for me.

Dear Richard,

In a world where hardhead gatekeepers have been escalating since WWII to reduce democracy to the point that now China seems more democratic than what used to be The West, my synthesis of your “… conversation with Julia Kirby and Steve Denning” is that under The Wealth of Globalization context, we still have what are supposed to be leaders under The Wealth of Nations context of the Contemporary Age operating as managers while keeping potential leaders in lower contexts. That means that we lack the needed global leaders of the Cybernetic Age under The Wealth of Globalization to enable “leadership everywhere.” To do so, maybe it might be useful, for example, my humble most recent Medium response “Opportunity for Experts 2.0: an alternative for the #NewMacyMeeting ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/opportunity-for-experts-2-0-an-alternative-for-the-newmacymeeting-d888720cdb5e ).”