We hear a lot about "officials decline help and then we learn they should have accepted help," how often is help offered and then declined and that was correct, it's just a matter of course to...
We hear a lot about "officials decline help and then we learn they should have accepted help," how often is help offered and then declined and that was correct, it's just a matter of course to offer help in X condition but the local people know conditions better and say "we are probably fine" and then they are, in fact, fine?
We wouldn't see an investigation in that case. I'm also curious, though, why help would be turned down at all. Is it a pride thing? Do they get charged later?
We wouldn't see an investigation in that case. I'm also curious, though, why help would be turned down at all. Is it a pride thing? Do they get charged later?
But there have to be stats about it right? cos the offer of help would be FOIA-able? I'm thinking it has to be pretty routine to turn down help though, cos a state-level disaster-relief program...
But there have to be stats about it right? cos the offer of help would be FOIA-able?
I'm thinking it has to be pretty routine to turn down help though, cos a state-level disaster-relief program will have much less knowledge than a local chapter. For example if there's a storm in counties X, Y, and Z then the state says to each county "hey are you gonna be ok" and each county does its own risk assessment and X and Y say "yep we seem ok" and Z says "no we are going to need evacuation help can you send us 10 people who can do jobs A, B, and C" so the state sends those people to county Z and everyone was correct and everything goes well.
Or now say that instead these are three different storms and the state has a budget to send full support one time a year so each time they ask "do you need help this time" and if the counties say "yes" and they didn't need the help and they didn't well, that sucks a lot, you just wasted your disaster bail-out money. Of course 1 time is probably really n times but there's still going to be a limit here.
So I am sure there is a lot of actuarial math here and disaster planning and budgeting and who has what information, and with climate change we are going to be a LOT worse at making accurate forecasts. And we see this kind of article so often and it makes me wonder about the first part of the headline, I think it's very likely that "oh haha they turned down aid" is quite likely clickbait and what really happened is that an extremely complex system malfunctioned, but usually it does what it's supposed to (and would function better sans climate change).
But I have zero background here and no idea what is actually the case so I am curious; this is just what seems likely to me based on my general mental model of organizational problems.
If you search for Lahaina, you will find articles posted here on Tildes about warnings of the risk of wildfire to that city in particular. The other articles I read about it make me more likely to...
If you search for Lahaina, you will find articles posted here on Tildes about warnings of the risk of wildfire to that city in particular.
The other articles I read about it make me more likely to believe that this was negligent. Disaster preparedness experts are supposed to be experts and paying attention.
We hear a lot about "officials decline help and then we learn they should have accepted help," how often is help offered and then declined and that was correct, it's just a matter of course to offer help in X condition but the local people know conditions better and say "we are probably fine" and then they are, in fact, fine?
We wouldn't see an investigation in that case. I'm also curious, though, why help would be turned down at all. Is it a pride thing? Do they get charged later?
But there have to be stats about it right? cos the offer of help would be FOIA-able?
I'm thinking it has to be pretty routine to turn down help though, cos a state-level disaster-relief program will have much less knowledge than a local chapter. For example if there's a storm in counties X, Y, and Z then the state says to each county "hey are you gonna be ok" and each county does its own risk assessment and X and Y say "yep we seem ok" and Z says "no we are going to need evacuation help can you send us 10 people who can do jobs A, B, and C" so the state sends those people to county Z and everyone was correct and everything goes well.
Or now say that instead these are three different storms and the state has a budget to send full support one time a year so each time they ask "do you need help this time" and if the counties say "yes" and they didn't need the help and they didn't well, that sucks a lot, you just wasted your disaster bail-out money. Of course 1 time is probably really
ntimes but there's still going to be a limit here.So I am sure there is a lot of actuarial math here and disaster planning and budgeting and who has what information, and with climate change we are going to be a LOT worse at making accurate forecasts. And we see this kind of article so often and it makes me wonder about the first part of the headline, I think it's very likely that "oh haha they turned down aid" is quite likely clickbait and what really happened is that an extremely complex system malfunctioned, but usually it does what it's supposed to (and would function better sans climate change).
But I have zero background here and no idea what is actually the case so I am curious; this is just what seems likely to me based on my general mental model of organizational problems.
If you search for Lahaina, you will find articles posted here on Tildes about warnings of the risk of wildfire to that city in particular.
The other articles I read about it make me more likely to believe that this was negligent. Disaster preparedness experts are supposed to be experts and paying attention.