That is a good CotD, @robbie, one that is well-argued, although, as is par for the course, I will disagree with some of the points made there 🙂
I have reserved my harshest criticism at the parties involved for the poor communications before the fact, and for the local promoters allowing fans to gather at the gates on Friday morning.
That said, there is also criticism that can be levelled at the Australian government (as can be at the governments of several other countries). Granted, they have to walk that tight line between shutting down events to safeguard people and inadvertently sending a harsh shock through an economy by being too aggressive. Nevertheless, one got the distinct impression that they did not want to be seen cancelling high-value public events like the cricket match, or F1. Of the lot, I’d probably give them the largest benefit of doubt.
I’d also say that as a party who were financially directly invested in the conduct and success of the GP, the Victoria govt. might not have been able to make an impartial decision. It’s one thing for a commercial and profit-making entity like FOM to have a goal of “try and keep the race on”, it’s another one when a government tasked with the wellbeing of its citizenry has such a conflict of interest. This isn’t criticism per se, but a cautionary tale for future race venues as well (a cautionary tale for whom? I honestly don’t know! Maybe an ombudsman/regulator/equivalent in countries that have it?)
It also appeared that the health authorities being consulted had been seemingly co-opted unknowningly into toeing an economic line instead of just issuing impartial medical guidance. The WHO declared a pandemic on Wednesday (not sure of the time, but it was likely Thursday morning in Australia), but the rumblings and pressure on the WHO have been there earlier for the local health authorities to see. And the rather special nature of F1 that brought participants from various countries (including Italy), and viewers from others should have had them treating it with a higher level of caution. It’s not a local event where geographic insularity offers some protection.
Finally, decision making needn’t be top down. There isn’t a need for the WHO to declare a pandemic for local health authorities to issue revised guidance, for it to then be taken up by the race organizers/stakeholders. The decision chain can be short-circuited. FOM and AGPC have been using “unprecedented situation” as a justification, but I’d equally argue that they did not show any “unprecedented thinking” when it came to making decisions. A simple case in point – while Liberty’s desire to build consensus is admirable, there was no need to put this decision to a vote to the teams. Liberty could have just stated to the teams their intent, with the caveat “unprecedented situation, hence unprecedented actions”.
We need this criticism to be out there, because that is the only way that when such a situation repeats itself, people will have internalized the lessons from this event, and apply it to the future. S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore all learnt from their earlier brushes with SARS and set in place plans and systems to quickly swing into action. There’s no reason why our countries cannot follow a similar model.
PS: Sorry for the wall of text, folks, I’ll get off my soapbox 🙂
