And the negative ...

Here's a disaster scenario that put communities into a worst-case situation. It's an unlikely scenario, but not impossible. Let's suppose there is an outbreak of a contagious disease in a large city. Let's also imagine that the contagious agent is highly infectious, has a high fatality rate, and is not well understood (at first). This means that in a few days there are many sick people, hospitals and ER's are overwhelmed, and care providers are dying (along with patients). It also means that the Gov't faces an emergency scenario and might decide to cordon off the whole city and station troops on the exit roads. It may be necessary to give orders to the troops to prevent people leaving - in order to stop the disease from spreading to other towns.

This type of scenario would be hard for people to handle - there would be high levels of fear, and possibly even panic. Unlike some disasters, this one would tend to break down cooperation within communities. Parents are well aware that school kids infect each other easily with all kinds of contagious illnesses. So very likely families would choose to stay in their homes and isolate themselves. Under these circumstances, feelings like doubt, fear and suspicion would work against the positive sides of human nature.

This scenario also gives a case where "bug out through a devastated city" might actually make a lot of sense. Anybody who escapes the city before it is cordoned off might improve their chances of survival significantly.

Obviously, this is truly one of those worst-case disaster scenarios. This is why the Gov't develops plans to react to scenarios involving outbreaks of diseases and chem/bio warfare. Let's hope it remains an unlikely event.

Pete #2