The reference to use of the word "pandemic" in legislation and in presidential addresses raises a query: Does this take into account that legislation usually stays in effect for a number of years (and possibly indefinitely until repealed), and therefore is cumulative to some extent and once a push for legislation has occurred and been successful (wholly or partially) then it would seem there would be less legislation in subsequent years because less was needed (since some had already been passed) thus resulting in less use of the word by subsequent Congresses. There would be less need for a President to speak about it (I am assuming a great deal of Presidential speaking concerns pushing for legislation), since some of the legislative work had already been accomplished. I am not saying this happened actually happened. I am merely pointing out that the lessening of the use of the word "pandemic" between George W. Bush and Barack Obama might not indicate a lessening of attention by the Obama Administration but an indication of success by the Bush administration. I guess this is a correlation vs. causation problem of some sort.
"Data" surely includes knowledge of where people (individuals) happen to be at particular times, informed by existing knowledge of transmission pathways, & what is their state of immunity (history of prior infections & vaccinations). Armed with that perfect knowledge, policy actions are constrained by ability to confine further contacts between people.
Then, *without* that knowledge of precise who/what/when/where & *without* ability to severely contain groups (or entire cities), control of some agents is not possible.
The reference to use of the word "pandemic" in legislation and in presidential addresses raises a query: Does this take into account that legislation usually stays in effect for a number of years (and possibly indefinitely until repealed), and therefore is cumulative to some extent and once a push for legislation has occurred and been successful (wholly or partially) then it would seem there would be less legislation in subsequent years because less was needed (since some had already been passed) thus resulting in less use of the word by subsequent Congresses. There would be less need for a President to speak about it (I am assuming a great deal of Presidential speaking concerns pushing for legislation), since some of the legislative work had already been accomplished. I am not saying this happened actually happened. I am merely pointing out that the lessening of the use of the word "pandemic" between George W. Bush and Barack Obama might not indicate a lessening of attention by the Obama Administration but an indication of success by the Bush administration. I guess this is a correlation vs. causation problem of some sort.
"Data" surely includes knowledge of where people (individuals) happen to be at particular times, informed by existing knowledge of transmission pathways, & what is their state of immunity (history of prior infections & vaccinations). Armed with that perfect knowledge, policy actions are constrained by ability to confine further contacts between people.
Then, *without* that knowledge of precise who/what/when/where & *without* ability to severely contain groups (or entire cities), control of some agents is not possible.