The post referencing the how fragile modern Networked Ecomonies are by martinfocazio and the article in New Scientist magazine made me go and find a copy, as Martin says it makes interesting reading.

However alongside it is a related article looking at the impact of a pandemic, with quotes from various academics and the likes of Jon Lay, head of global emergency preparedness for ExxonMobil it is fairly levelheaded, but it makes for disturbing reading. These are some of the key points:

1) Most cities only have three days supply of food on hand
2) US plans for a pandemic call for people to store 3 weeks of food and water
3) Some planners think people should have 10 weeks worth
4) However stockpiling once it begins will not be achievable or affordable
5) Most (US) hopitals only have two days worth of Oxygen supplies on hand with blood and drugs not too far behind.
6) Absenteeism is the big worry, either through people being ill or staying away from work to avoid catching the illness [this is acknowledged as the best thing to do if you want to avoid it]
7) Absenteeism will mean that critical distribution and transport networks will break down
8) Many businesses expect their staff to be able to work online from home in a crisis, however models show there will not be enough bandwidth to go around
9) Absenteeism will also mean that critical industrial processes and sites will need to be shutdown due to safety concerns of running them with insufficient staff*
10) If the power goes off** for an extended period of time (days) then you have industrial refrigeration failures, water purification system failures, etc. The longer it is off the greater the knock on effect.

* As the recent precautionary shutdown of the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland in advance of strike action by one of the unions on site illustrated. They only expected around 30% of the staff to be on strike but said they could not operate the plant safely with that number absent. It also shutdown the Natural Gas distribution network that flows through the site from the North Sea into the UK network.

** Due to lack of staff, or lack of say, coal, due to transport issues.

The article goes on to say most of the models assume death rates the same as the mild 1957 and 1968 pandemics or occasionally the 1918 pandemic [the latter assumes a 3% mortality rate or 142 million deaths worldwide]. However to date H5N1 has a mortality rate of 63 per cent in humans. To quote one of the academics "It is negligent to assume that if H5N1 bird flu goes pandemic that it will become less deadly".

You've put together a very nice concise list of the practical social implications of a pandemic hitting the states (and the rest of the world for that matter).

The overall logistics required concerning containment and quarantine are going to leave a great number of hungry people huddling together in cold dark houses.

Exxon Mobile, the fine folks who trashed Alaska with the Exxon Valdez and a DUI skipper. 'nough said.

I was up there when it happened and yes, people were pretty ticked at EM for the whole thing. The good thing was seeing all the volunteers who pitched in to do what they could. Cut the guy a break, maybe the dude wasn't on staff when the whole thing happened. Besides, ExxonMobil didn't force the alcohol down that dopey skipper's throat.

In regards to the Scotland event, poor opinions/statements of unions could also be levied (I would probably lead the charge). But that isn't the point or intent of the article.

EM and unions along with their past evils aside, all of us need to keep our preparations on schedule to get us through at least 3-4 weeks of self-sufficiency.

I wouldn't worry too much about trucking, trains, air traffic, water, power, hospitals and food delivery. As long as the powers-that-be temporarily nationalize and take control of the basics soon enough they can be maintained by skeleton emergency crews for extended periods of time. It was done quite well and efficiently during WW2.

That isn't to say it would be smooth. Elective medical treatments would be gone for the duration. Services and resources probably rationed. Rolling blackouts and shortages possible.

A rough ride for people who are used to having everything. But, for the most part, everyone would make it. Nobody gets fat but nobody starves. It isn't the capitalist way but tough. It is how we got through WW2. It is a proven strategy for hard times.

I've heard that around here the pandemic contingency assumes that within a short period of time, there will be a 60% absentee rate or more in most occupations.

"However to date H5N1 has a mortality rate of 63 per cent in humans."

I doubt that that info (opinion) is accurate. I suspect they are counting only the known victims, and ignoring the rest. It has been estimated that many people who came into contact with the infected animals in high-density conditions actually came down with the disease, but weren't sick enough to go to the hospital.

But if they're just trying to cause a panic or something, that 63% will probably do for now.

Sue

Art> You are right about drafting in the military to run vital services and the WHO global preparedness plan suggests the same thing here: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/en/ However I am just not sure how easy it will be with some of the complex control systems now in place where extensive training and knowledge are necessary to operate them.

Sue> I am guessing they are using WHO figures here:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2008_04_30/en/index.html

That, as you suggested, only considers confirmed cases. However I guess that is all they can work with. Hopefully you are right.

So getting this back on a more equipped.org footing here is my thinking; given the above issues in a pandemic scenario this is what I need to address:

- Food and Consumables for 10 weeks
- Potable Water for 10 weeks
- Rainwater recovery for hygiene inc. toilet flushing (assuming sewerage is still operational - the town's system appears gravity based)
- Ability to boil water even if power and natural gas are off (a Kelly Kettle)
- N95 face masks (as per WHO recommendations for health workers; on the "good enough for them, good enough for me" basis)
- Heat source, most likely a log burner

I suspect as I am classed as non-critical staff and the site I work on is a control site for some national infrastructure they won't want to see me anyway. So would aim for self imposed isolation.

What am I missing, apart from a stack of good books to read?

There are a lot of reasons to encourage and facilitate telecommuting. Preparedness should be #1 and reason enough.

A concerted effort among private and public sector employers to have as many workers as possible telecommute one day a week would have many benefits: 1) save fuel; 2) alleviate traffic congestion, and; 3) prepare those entities for full-time telecommuting in an emergency such as a pandemic.

The first step to contain a pandemic should be closing schools. That's a lot of working parents -- many of them single -- suddenly needing to stay home to care for them.

Everyone involved in pandemic planning should read Stephen King's "The Stand." That military-devised superflu is the ultimate worst-case scenario -- far, far beyond normal worst-case pandemic models -- but the rapid societal breakdown is instructive. The creepiness of it is highly motivating.

In fact, I've given it to a couple.

And this reminds me that more N95 masks would be a good plan for my home, office and car.

Do you live in a city? I can't imagine how that's doable in a city such as mine (Washington, D.C.), where most residents live in rowhouses or condos. The detached homes in older close-in and newer outlying suburbs also tend to be crammed closely together on small lots.

What would people in London do?

The cities are simply going to have to keep the sewage and water systems functioning. Failure to do that would be cataclysmic.

There are 100 million people in the 400-mile stretch from DC to Boston.

West Virginia's country roads wouldn't be hospitable for long...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-03-voa11.cfm

Deadly virus in China

No, I live in a town of around 10,000 people in a rural area. So should be achievable.

It is only a matter of time before the planet experiences a human pandemic.

I worry more about the public panicking than the actual disease process of a pandemic.

Not to minimize the effects of what ever infectious agent is going to be the culprit in the least.

People just have a talent for making a bad situation worse.

When they get scared they will turn to any charismatic idiot that will make them feel safe, then the real long term damage begins.

I didn't say it would be pretty.

Ideally the goal would be to maintain a safety net that makes sure that nobody starves or lacks basic care. Food rationing and soup lines, a place to sleep if needed and the simplest of EMS and security services for all would be the targeted level of existence. In part provided to keep people alive and well but as important to keep people calm. To prevent panic, hording, mass migration and breakdown of civil order.

By keeping the standard low it makes it easier for smaller numbers of lesser trained and experienced people to keep it all working.

IMHO such an event, discounting the inevitable, but hopefully few, casualties, might have a beneficial effect. People would have the opportunity to see that fashion, the internet and the latest diet isn't all there is. That you can live off less than most seem to think and still have a decent time. That consumerism and keeping up with the Joneses can be done without. And,perhaps,that if we all give a little and work together we can get through the hard times without anyone suffering too much.

IMO we saw a similar sobering and uniting effect from the Great Depression.

Unless you can point to more recent studies that I haven't seen, Sue, researchers who have done community blood testing in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam during avian flu outbreaks have found no evidence of any significant proportion of people who were infected but never got sick or only had mild symptoms and never went to the hospital. Therefore, avian flu was, and still is, a serious and highly lethal disease any time it manages to infect people.

Good information in general on this site but here are some quotable numbers related to this thread:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/h5n1/index-eng.php

Continuing the discussion: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic?
My recommendation is to not get sick, injured, burned or lose your mind, particularly if you are up in years.

Since we're talking pandemics here, here's an AP article out today about the threat. Nothing new in it, really, except to remind us that the lack of visibility in the news doesn't mean the threat has gone away.

One tidbit I wasn't aware of already--the article says that the WHO has 5 million doses of antiviral meds. I'm assuming that these are under the WHO's direct control and can be sent to a hotspot quickly, rather than saying that these are 5 million pledged doses, but that the donor countries have to pony up the meds at WHO's request for the meds to be deployed. That could be a problem when speed is critical.

We've got some folks at my office working on pandemics on the modeling side.

General news article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10446535

Scientific source article:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/12/4639

The actual models are pretty cool. The image here is a representation of one Chicago resident's social interaction in one day.
https://www.vbi.vt.edu/public_relations/press_releases/chicago_pandemic_influenza_simulation
They are dynamic, meaning once you've set disease parameters you can play with it (close schools at first outset or one week later, etc.) and try to find the best course of action.