Talk:Decision analysis and risk management

From Opasnet
Revision as of 14:31, 3 February 2011 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (Draft synopsis)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Draft synopsis

Introduction to course: content and methods

CASE 1-2: Intro: how problem emerged, global problem

Risk management: what is managed, who is responsible, what is included? traditional paradigm

  • Look from decision-maker's point of view: needs, communication, and assessment all included
  • Openness: RA, RM, RC are not totally separate
  • Performance: Context about what we actually aim to achieve. Ho do we know if we succeeded?
  • Developing risk management options.
  • Development of risk assessment questions.
  • Science-policy interface. Why it does not exist.

CASE 3: Preparedness in Finland and internationally

CASE 4: Vaccination campaigns, counter-campaigns

  • Should we launch vaccination campaign?
  • Should I take vaccination? Should I not take vaccination?

Decision analysis: introduction: decision trees

  • Purpose of assessment: Why it is done
  • Concepts: decisions, objectives, optimisation, uncertainty

Subjective probabilities, exercise

  • Bayesian rule and Bayesian networks.
  • Denis Lindley: Philosophy of probabilities

CASE 5: First deaths of swine flu (threat was real) CASE 6: Problems with implementation: long queues in health centers

CASE 7: Clear-cut case falls apart. False alarm? Disease was milder than thought.

Decision-making under uncertainty

  • Assessment performance? Quality of evidence? Impacts of uncertainty in decision-making. Hindsight.
  • Inference rules: how do we know what we know?
  • Acceptability
  • Value of information


CASE 8: Secret connections to drug industry?

Case 9: Narcolepsy

Trialogue, collective learning

  • Justified true belief and its problems
  • Shared information vs. private information
  • Actions by a group based on shared information
  • Shared belief systems
  • Risk assessment as a collaborative project of information production.

Scientific method, falsification.

  • Do we need pre-peer-review?

Discussion section here?

Opasnet section here?

CASE: Vaccination campaign halted.

CASE 10: THL remains silent

CASE 11: Narcolepsy analysis

Why openness is needed

  • Impacts of openness on topics discussed.

Opasnet and other web tools for risk assessment.

  • Practical and technical things to get started.
  • Aim: to learn skills that are needed to perform and participate in practical training.

Discussion section here?

CASE 12: Publishing of narcolepsy results and apologies

CASE 13: Searching for the quilty.

Discussion: Lectures of concepts

  • Pragma-dialectic argumentation theory.
  • Parts of argumentation.

Structuring of discussions in practice and theory

  • Ready-made texts: discussions and organisation
  • Homework: evaluate relevance - validity of arguments. Discuss in groups the next day.
  • Build a structured discussion out of this in groups.
  • Possibly utilise group writing tools?

Case study: practical work

  • Decision analysis
  • Revisiting of policy question
  • Impact of closedness/openness in this case (opportunity or threat?)
  • Risk communication: how should it have been done?