Read on Twitter
Since I've been asked this a few times over the last little bit, I thought I would spend some time explaining why there seems to be a giant lag between the time a decision-maker thinks something should happen and when it does in fact happen.
Before I do that, I have to admit my frustration at what seems like an obvious slow trickle of information. However, I think we ought to acknowledge that we are now consuming information at warp speed, and so decision-making isn't - and can't - be done in such haste.
From what I gather, a lot of people are "at the table" and lots of discussions are being had. When you have that much information and that many people feeding the decision, the measures in which there is consensus are few. Decisions aren't clear cut. See chart:
Things started pointing rapidly over the holidays to where we see consensus forming. The Premier and CMO are briefed. Given the data, decisions need to be made. Here's the 'hint' that you see in the media. Just because Ford thinks something needs to happen, it doesn't right away.
The Command Table, co-chaired by the head of the public service and Ford's Chief of Staff meet to decide what to do. They meet, they ask questions, more information may be required in terms of the data informing the decision, and that cycle plays out.
Once the Command Table develops a recommendation, it is brought to full cabinet. Memoranda to cabinet are drafted weighing various considerations. These are given to ministers who need to be briefed on them.
Cabinet meets. It deliberates and makes the final decision. The decisions rendered may take the direction of the recommendations that are fed to it by public health or go in a different direction entirely. The public service dutifully implements whatever the cabinet decides.
Post-decision, a lot of work needs to take place to write communications, background documents, regulations etc. If a decision is communicated without certainty on what is meant and to whom it applies, chaos would ensue. This adds time.
All of these plans that factor in multiple ministries need to be coordinated and consistent. If you've ever written anything with multiple authors, you know how tough consistency is.
Then stakeholders need to be informed. Whereas governments like stakeholders to be part of the policy/regulatory creation, that luxury doesn't exist during the plague. This typically means having NDAs signed so that stakeholders can take a peak at what's to come in advance.
I should add a word about translation, because that adds an element as well. Regulations/policy are written in both official languages. Any graphics that help illustrate the decisions need to be created too.
We now finally reach the point of public communication. Press conference is held. News releases are out. A technical briefing or two may help answer questions, and web sites go live with the changes. Government spokespeople fan out to discuss measures.
Post announcement, this government has given 48-72 hours, typically, to give people the opportunity to adjust. People will spend time on Twitter supporting or dismissing the government action even though much consideration has been given. It's a free country after all.
All of this used to take months. It now takes mere days, and that may seem slow to you, but that's because insta-news demands insta-government action, when the processes in place prevent one person from making the call without the input from others.
