Page - 171 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

171Good Governance: Institutions, Processes, and People protectors needed to be at the table for when security and intelligence decisions were made in 2001, then doctors and economists needed to be at the table in 2020 for COVID-19. Specialized Cabinet committees allow for deliberative consideration of interconnected issues to opti- mize decision-making where there are a multitude of objectives. The quality of decision-making is always dependent on the qual- ity and availability of the data and the evidence on which that data is based. The decision about whether to recommend the wearing of masks or force lockdowns has been the subject of much criticism. However, in the presence of imperfect information, policy leaders must make decisions based on the medical, scientific, economic, and social assessments available to them.21 After the fact we assess their decisions with perfect hindsight. The adequacy and appropriateness of a decision should be evaluated based on the information available at the time the particular decision was taken. With inadequate informa- tion of the viral loads, immunities, testing, and transmission of SARS- CoV-2, medical and policy leaders did the best they could.22 Optimal decisions ex  ante look very different from perfect decisions ex  post.23 Moreover, the judgment of ministers requires optimality in risk taking.24 That means seeking adequate information, exercising due diligence in its assessment, understanding the consequences of deci- sions, and knowing what risks to take.25 It also means being prepared to change the decision upon discovering or receiving new informa- tion. The recommendation to wear masks is an example of responding to the evolving base of evidence in this pandemic. Some key decisions on mitigation and on health resource allo- cation may be judged to be wrong in the long term. However, they appear remarkably well taken based on the imperfect information available at the time. 21. See Flood, Thomas & Wilson, this volume, Chapter C-1, discussing information inadequacy and the precautionary principle as well as proportionality. 22. On weighing risks, see Gillian Tett, “Is it Safe to Go to the Shops, See a Friend or Get on a Plane?”, Financial Times (8 May 2020), online: <www.ft.com/content/ a69afc14-904a-11ea-9b25-c36e3584cda8>. 23. Marc Fleurbaey, “Welfare Economics, Risk and Uncertainty” (2018) 51:1 Can J of Economics 5. 24. See Michael Howlett, “Policy Analytical Capacity and Evidence-Based Policy- Making: Lessons from Canada” (2009) 52:2 Can Public Administration 153. 25. For a discussion of the duty of governments to seek adequate information see Jula Hughes & Vanessa MacDonnell, “Social Science Evidence in Constitutional Rights Cases in Germany and Canada: Some Comparative Observations” (2013) 32:1 NJCL 23.