Would a Flu Pandemic Mean Anarchy?

[eilute]

A lot of people might not want to go out of their home if they knew a deadly flu virus was going around. Of those that do, many could become severly ill, and many could die. Would grocery stores shutdown, electricity go out, water stop running, gas stations shutdown, and trains stop running? I'm sure FEMA could easily be paralyzed :disgust:. Police forces would be understaffed, hospitals would run out ot beds in no time, schools would probably shutdown. Would the economy collaspe and the world's government fade away?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Well last time the world survived, even if a lot of the people didn't.

 

[aidanjm]

maybe people would be too sick to riot in the streets? If half of your family just died, you might not be in the mood for smashing windows and stealing large screen plasma tvs.

but say you have a relative who is dying, and you want a ventilator machine to keep that person alive, and you go to the hospital and they tell you there are no free machines (there are only about 80,000 mechanical ventilators in the USA) you might get pretty angry.

I am sure there would be massive damage to the economy, tho.

 

[eilute]

True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eilute
True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

BS. And today we have much better health technology and medical care. Then they had almost none. Americans for the most part didn't even have aspirin because Bayer was the only patent holder and manufacturer (aspirin was invented in 1899), and they were distrusted as a German company.
BTW, the "Spanish flu" of 1918 killed as many as 100 million people in less than 6 months. It is estimated that at least 5% of India's population was killed, mostly young soldiers. And that at least 20% of the world's population was infected and suffered from the disease at some point during its run. Nor was the lack of commercial airliners a hindrance to the spread of the disease. With millions of soldiers returning from WWI, virtually every inhabited spot on the globe was infected.

 

[Dissipate]

A big ole :roll: at this thread. :roll:

 

[conjur]

You mean "epidemic"?

 

[lozina]

I think the opposite is true. It would make government more prevalent in the form of a police state/martial law

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eilute
True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

BS. And today we have much better health technology and medical care. Then they had almost none. Americans for the most part didn't even have aspirin because Bayer was the only patent holder and manufacturer (aspirin was invented in 1899), and they were distrusted as a German company.
BTW, the "Spanish flu" of 1918 killed as many as 100 million people in less than 6 months. It is estimated that at least 5% of India's population was killed, mostly young soldiers. And that at least 20% of the world's population was infected and suffered from the disease at some point during its run. Nor was the lack of commercial airliners a hindrance to the spread of the disease. With millions of soldiers returning from WWI, virtually every inhabited spot on the globe was infected.

You would find out just how good that health care isn't. When there is one bed for a hundred patients, then what?

There isn't enough In the whole world to take care of the US alone if it struck hard. In the event of a full blown pandemic. Precisely what would happen to rescue us? There isn't much extra capacity. IF you could see a doctor, what would he do for you? Pat you on your back and wish you the best? What is he going to give you when all the meds are gone the first few days?

Sorry Vic, but I know health care. It's a wonderful thing when all's well. When it's stretched too far it will break.

 

[purepolly]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eilute
True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

BS. And today we have much better health technology and medical care. Then they had almost none. Americans for the most part didn't even have aspirin because Bayer was the only patent holder and manufacturer (aspirin was invented in 1899), and they were distrusted as a German company.
BTW, the "Spanish flu" of 1918 killed as many as 100 million people in less than 6 months. It is estimated that at least 5% of India's population was killed, mostly young soldiers. And that at least 20% of the world's population was infected and suffered from the disease at some point during its run. Nor was the lack of commercial airliners a hindrance to the spread of the disease. With millions of soldiers returning from WWI, virtually every inhabited spot on the globe was infected.

You would find out just how good that health care isn't. When there is one bed for a hundred patients, then what?

There isn't enough In the whole world to take care of the US alone if it struck hard. In the event of a full blown pandemic. Precisely what would happen to rescue us? There isn't much extra capacity. IF you could see a doctor, what would he do for you? Pat you on your back and wish you the best? What is he going to give you when all the meds are gone the first few days?

Sorry Vic, but I know health care. It's a wonderful thing when all's well. When it's stretched too far it will break.

I have to agree, we have been diverting for weeks now as it is. Where would all the sick people go, and what about replacing sick staff members? Hell, there is a shortage now, what happens when the nurses get sick too?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: purepolly

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eilute
True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

BS. And today we have much better health technology and medical care. Then they had almost none. Americans for the most part didn't even have aspirin because Bayer was the only patent holder and manufacturer (aspirin was invented in 1899), and they were distrusted as a German company.
BTW, the "Spanish flu" of 1918 killed as many as 100 million people in less than 6 months. It is estimated that at least 5% of India's population was killed, mostly young soldiers. And that at least 20% of the world's population was infected and suffered from the disease at some point during its run. Nor was the lack of commercial airliners a hindrance to the spread of the disease. With millions of soldiers returning from WWI, virtually every inhabited spot on the globe was infected.

You would find out just how good that health care isn't. When there is one bed for a hundred patients, then what?

There isn't enough In the whole world to take care of the US alone if it struck hard. In the event of a full blown pandemic. Precisely what would happen to rescue us? There isn't much extra capacity. IF you could see a doctor, what would he do for you? Pat you on your back and wish you the best? What is he going to give you when all the meds are gone the first few days?

Sorry Vic, but I know health care. It's a wonderful thing when all's well. When it's stretched too far it will break.

I have to agree, we have been diverting for weeks now as it is. Where would all the sick people go, and what about replacing sick staff members? Hell, there is a shortage now, what happens when the nurses get sick too?

That's not even the main issue. When there is 1 bed for 100 people, the other 99, desperate and furious, will likely tear the hospital apart.

I expect that any clinical center that's not surrounded by armed and willing national guard/army/police, in large numbers, will be rapidly overrun, ransacked, and rendered unusable... not to mention the number of medical personnel killed, when they tell the angry mobs that there is nothing they can do for their dying family members.

 

[purepolly]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: purepolly

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eilute
True, but the H5N1 virus that is going around now could potentialy be more contagious and have a higher fatality rate than the 1918 flu. On top of that, we now have larger urban centers, and we have airplanes. The virus could spread around the world at a much faster rate. I suspect that the 1918 flu pandemic is far from a worst case scenario.

BS. And today we have much better health technology and medical care. Then they had almost none. Americans for the most part didn't even have aspirin because Bayer was the only patent holder and manufacturer (aspirin was invented in 1899), and they were distrusted as a German company.
BTW, the "Spanish flu" of 1918 killed as many as 100 million people in less than 6 months. It is estimated that at least 5% of India's population was killed, mostly young soldiers. And that at least 20% of the world's population was infected and suffered from the disease at some point during its run. Nor was the lack of commercial airliners a hindrance to the spread of the disease. With millions of soldiers returning from WWI, virtually every inhabited spot on the globe was infected.

You would find out just how good that health care isn't. When there is one bed for a hundred patients, then what?

There isn't enough In the whole world to take care of the US alone if it struck hard. In the event of a full blown pandemic. Precisely what would happen to rescue us? There isn't much extra capacity. IF you could see a doctor, what would he do for you? Pat you on your back and wish you the best? What is he going to give you when all the meds are gone the first few days?

Sorry Vic, but I know health care. It's a wonderful thing when all's well. When it's stretched too far it will break.

I have to agree, we have been diverting for weeks now as it is. Where would all the sick people go, and what about replacing sick staff members? Hell, there is a shortage now, what happens when the nurses get sick too?

That's not even the main issue. When there is 1 bed for 100 people, the other 99, desperate and furious, will likely tear the hospital apart.

I expect that any clinical center that's not surrounded by armed and willing national guard/army/police, in large numbers, will be rapidly overrun, ransacked, and rendered unusable... not to mention the number of medical personnel killed, when they tell the angry mobs that there is nothing they can do for their dying family members.

I hadn't even thought of that possibility. I'm not sure it would apply at my facility (VA) since we do have an armed police force onsite, but it is an interesting twist to consider for a regular hospital.

 

[DeadByDawn]

I believe there is a good possiblity for anarchy. Back in 1918 most people lived on farms or new how to hunt, fish, garden to feed themselves. If all the grocery stores & McDonalds closed most people nowadays would starve & try to steal food from others. How many days would it take of your kids going hungry before you tried to steal food for them?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You would find out just how good that health care isn't. When there is one bed for a hundred patients, then what?

There isn't enough In the whole world to take care of the US alone if it struck hard. In the event of a full blown pandemic. Precisely what would happen to rescue us? There isn't much extra capacity. IF you could see a doctor, what would he do for you? Pat you on your back and wish you the best? What is he going to give you when all the meds are gone the first few days?

Sorry Vic, but I know health care. It's a wonderful thing when all's well. When it's stretched too far it will break.

Ah but the same issue would have applied then but even more so.

 

[TGregg]

It's the end of the world. Better give all your stuff away and run up into the hills. Go now, don't wait. 😉

 

[Legend]

Not worried about it.

If an outbreak begins, all I'll do is stock up a bit on necessities. Dry foods, some medications. I'm not in a city with a high crime rate, so I'm not worried about rioting.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Legend
Not worried about it.

If an outbreak begins, all I'll do is stock up a bit on necessities. Dry foods, some medications. I'm not in a city with a high crime rate, so I'm not worried about rioting.

In case of a massively fatal pandemic, any city will be a city with a high crime rate. Such is human nature. I think if you own a house, the best preparation would be to add several firearms to your stock of "necessities".

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Legend
Not worried about it.

If an outbreak begins, all I'll do is stock up a bit on necessities. Dry foods, some medications. I'm not in a city with a high crime rate, so I'm not worried about rioting.

In case of a massively fatal pandemic, any city will be a city with a high crime rate. Such is human nature. I think if you own a house, the best preparation would be to add several firearms to your stock of "necessities".

I'm a college student in an apartment.

But if it was Resident Evil and everyone's sick and yet able to get up and riot, then I'd get guns and go out into the country...which is about 10 miles from where I am (Knoxville, TN). Farms, mountains, and forests all around me. If it were a survival type thing, I'd make it.

But not going to happen.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: DeadByDawn
I believe there is a good possiblity for anarchy. Back in 1918 most people lived on farms or new how to hunt, fish, garden to feed themselves. If all the grocery stores & McDonalds closed most people nowadays would starve & try to steal food from others. How many days would it take of your kids going hungry before you tried to steal food for them?

The US was FAR more ubanized than you are giving it credit for in 1918. By that point mechanization had decreased the population of farmers considerably. Fishing and hunting was not a major element of most people's lifestyles by 1918, and was not relied upon during the flu pandemic.

A HUGE point people are overlooking is that if you wear a surgical mask and make a point of washing your hands with disinfectant, you're pretty safe from catching the flu. This means some key businesses including grocery stores can stay open. Basically I'd expect alot of people to wear surgical masks, which happened historically in 1918, but necessary business will still pretty much get done.