important point here. what is the universe of the possible? when people calculate 1000 year flood, which is the actuarial projection? if you use sixties and seventies data, you get bad risk assessments because the climate is changing. that seems to be a crucial part of this here. all forms of civil engineering and environmental engineering now have to take as the data set, that they calculate risk off of, how much more current set of data and project out forward, to be able to meet the kind of tail risk possibilities that threaten us. well, this effort in new orleans, after katrina was actually the first geospatial distributed infrastructure system that was rebuilt and redesign based on risk information that was brand-new. we ask has been used in a lot of other industries.
your involvement on the levee side of things. it was one of the most catastrophic failures in recent memory. huge studies done, and a concerted effort to address it. what do those efforts look like and how do you feel like how it appears to perform? in what some say is the fifth most powerful storm to ever make landfall? well, it s very gratifying to wake up and find out that people in new orleans were standing on dry ground. i think what happened in new orleans after katrina is a great example of what has to happen in a lot of places around the country. congress provided the resources that allowed a very conscientious, comprehensive analysis of what went wrong and why. and the ability to create a design of a new system based on risk that was much more
that is the case. yeah. you are pointing to some of the nuance here. which is obviously that medicine changes and is complicated, information changes, and you wouldn t want a stalin this body that prevents people from debating treatments, particularly if doctors are finding effect with some. but it seems to me that it crosses a line when you become a kind of warehouse to prescribed this drug to folks. that, you know, there is not a lot of medical evidence to support and could be having a real deleterious effect on people, if it is encouraging people not to get the vaccine. i think the bottom line is, we don t want to stop debate or discourse. we don t want people to be afraid to speak their mind. but again, if there is concern that there are impacts on people who could receive treatment that is otherwise helpful, then we certainly have
something that is bipartisan, infrastructure is just that. we know that if we were to build back better, and by building back better, i say, instead of having these transmission lines exposed, where every time we have a hurricane, we have to redo this better thinking and a better use of taxpayer dollars would be to bury those power lines underground and make sure that we don t have this kind of issue in future years when hurricanes come. we know that the investment that was made 60 years ago after katrina paid huge dividends. and with this hurricane, as horrible and as difficult and painful as it was, it could have been a lot worse. going forward we should use infrastructure dollars to put power lines underground and build back better so that we can be more resilient going forward. professor hale, you made an
a way that ensures the safety of the public. yeah, it is striking to me and i m curious to hear your thoughts on this. but if you spent time in the world of this sort of alternate information ecosystem, whether it is pushing things like ivermectin, or before that hydroxychloroquine, or that the virus is not safe and effective, you find a lot of doctors. i mean, it s a small handful in absolute numbers, but they are they are in their lab coats. the sort of use of medical authority to promote this has been really a key part of the vector of this disinformation. you know, i think many doctors mean well and this has been a dynamic situation in which information was coming in very quickly. and there were drugs, anti viral, that had promised but really have not been borne out. and you have to understand that