NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's just say that the Bird Flu has arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the way it has spread, pharmaceutical companies have had a chance to develop a reasonable effective vaccine. The problem is that the quantities are limited.

Who do we vaccinate?
Makers -- people that can be counted on to rebuild society

Takers -- people that can't afford a cup of coffee

Lottery -- let's be 'fair'

Market -- Probably results in choice number one.

There's a lot of what-ifs here. Can society be rebuilt by Takers? Will people stand by and let the Makers buy all the vaccine? Maybe quotas are the answer?

How 'bout it?

The first person we save should be me.

Then we save attractive young men.

After that, anything goes. We might need a few geniuses or two to maintain our technological level and earthly comfort.

We're certainly NOT saving bankers and lawyers. The world will be a better place without them.:p

Oh, and I forgot..


We'd also need some of those breeder things... how do you call 'em again?

Yes, that's right, women. :p


*ducks for cover against incoming onslaught of indignation*

Nobody. It's not fair that there be winners and losers. :rolleyes:

(Frankly the world could stand a good Human die-off, but I won't go there...)

In this order: me, my fiancée, our families, let you all fight for the rest.:D
I kid, of course. I don't think bird flu would be that bad, but since we're in the realm of hypotheses: hmmm...I would have to say lottery. I want to say "Makers," but how are we to know who could really best rebuild society? Since there is no failsafe way of doing so, I vote lottery.

We take the most important 'makers,' and by that I mean our learned men and women who we will need to rebuild a society. Then the rest of the spots are filled by lottery.

Ark A
Ark B
Ark C... :p

Olara']In this order: me, my fiancée, our families, let you all fight for the rest.:D
I kid, of course. I don't think bird flu would be that bad, but since we're in the realm of hypotheses: hmmm...I would have to say lottery. I want to say "Makers," but how are we to know who could really best rebuild society? Since there is no failsafe way of doing so, I vote lottery.
This might almost work itself out. The 'Makers' of society are probably in a position to make sure that they are vaccinated. Anything left over is probably surplus.

The world needs good followers, too.

Ark A
Ark B
Ark C... :p
How quickly we forget. :)

Like it or not, the market will decide, as it always does. In the US, that means those with health insurance, which means those with good jobs. Those without will be left to die.

:rolleyes:

if this version of the avian flu is like the epidemic of 1919 then we must vaccinate the young healthy population aged 20-50. that was the segment of the population hardest hit.

Let's just say that the Bird Flu has arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the way it has spread, pharmaceutical companies have had a chance to develop a reasonable effective vaccine. The problem is that the quantities are limited.
How about a vaccination program aimed at limitting the spread, based on our understanding of disease transmission? Any system based on who the people are rather than where the disease is likely to spread is doomed to fail.

How about a vaccination program aimed at limitting the spread, based on our understanding of disease transmission? Any system based on who the people are rather than where the disease is likely to spread is doomed to fail.
Sure, we'd expect the virus to hit populated areas the worst, right? London, New York, LA would all be right up there. I bet there are more corporate headquarters in crowed cities than in rural areas. So the question isn't as affected by locale as one might think.

It might be a nice time to consider a quiet place in the mountains, eh?

It might be a nice time to consider a quiet place in the mountains, eh?
Nah, I'll be in my Bath drinking a Gin and Tonic.

Anybody with an IQ over 125.:D

Sincerely,

Number III

Every attractive woman I can pile into my secret hide out and me. I'll restart the human race for you guys, I'm just that selfless.

It's the freakin flu people! It's not even Captain Tripps. (five points to the first person who knows what that's from)

This is the same thing as the SARS scare. Didn't anyone see that South Park episode? :rolleyes:

Unless you have a weakened immune system (AIDS, etc), or are very old, you have a 98% chance of just being sick for a week. I'll take my chances, and give my vaccine to some really old guy with a super-hot grand-daughter.

Anybody with an IQ over 125.:D

Sincerely,

Number III

So I get to be saved after all.

But who are we going to use to feel superior? I don't want to be just another Joe Average. We need to bring at least a few stupid people with us.

Fortunately it ain't the bubonic plague!

And we're less likely to die of pneumonia than we were in 1918... *shakes head* Though the casualty rate from pneumonia would still be the largest...

Well, I could see the government using the lottery system: in order to qualify for the lottery, you had to be:

A) 50 years or younger
B) A registered voter

Why bother to save people that aren't going to vote for you?

Let's just say that the Bird Flu has arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the way it has spread, pharmaceutical companies have had a chance to develop a reasonable effective vaccine. The problem is that the quantities are limited.

Who do we vaccinate?
Makers -- people that can be counted on to rebuild society

Takers -- people that can't afford a cup of coffee

Lottery -- let's be 'fair'

Market -- Probably results in choice number one.

There's a lot of what-ifs here. Can society be rebuilt by Takers? Will people stand by and let the Makers buy all the vaccine? Maybe quotas are the answer?

How 'bout it?


I won't be needing any vaccines. My life is in the hands of GOD. Amen!

I won't be needing any vaccines. My life is in the hands of GOD. Amen!


Are you one of those people who don't believe in modern medicine because you think your life should just be in God's hands or something? Because there's a reason there isn't very many of you....you all DIE.



(well, we all do, but you do so faster than the rest of us)

Recent studies have shown that the primary spreaders of the flu are infants. Give the vaccine to as many infants as possible and you will severely limit the spread of the disease. This isnt a serious disease, most people can survive it, so anyone else shouldnt have a problem even if they do contract it.

Are you one of those people who don't believe in modern medicine because you think your life should just be in God's hands or something? Because there's a reason there isn't very many of you....you all DIE.



(well, we all do, but you do so faster than the rest of us)


To die young or old is irrelevent. To be saved for eternity is paramount.

It's the freakin flu people! It's not even Captain Tripps. (five points to the first person who knows what that's from)

This is the same thing as the SARS scare. Didn't anyone see that South Park episode? :rolleyes:

Unless you have a weakened immune system (AIDS, etc), or are very old, you have a 98% chance of just being sick for a week. I'll take my chances, and give my vaccine to some really old guy with a super-hot grand-daughter.

Agreed!

I think this whole thing is being overblown.

If you're a healthy adult between 20 and 50 years old, and live in a developed nation, you have little to nothing to worry about, as long as you do the usual flu stuff (bedrest, lots of fluids etc.)

That said, this DOES need to be controlled, so vaccines should be given in this order.

1. Medical and emergency service personnel
2. People under the age of 20
3. People over the age of 50
4. Anyone else who wants a vaccine

Me, I'm taking my chances without, and I'm not worried in the slightest.

To die young or old is irrelevent. To be saved for eternity is paramount.

:backs slowly away:

Wow, I was kidding...

:eek:

What people need to realise is that there isn't going to be a pandemic. Bird-Flu? Doesn't even transfer from human to human, and it's shown no signs of mutating in 4-5 years. In the event of a pandemic of another disease, well it's gonna be the market. But who's gonna miss a few bums.

I agree, really not that muh to worry about. we got much more chance of dying thousands of other ways (HIV, car crash, murdered....!)


It's the freakin flu people! It's not even Captain Tripps. (five points to the first person who knows what that's from)

captain trips aka project blue is a super bad virus from a Stephen King novel!

captain trips aka project blue is a super bad virus from a Stephen King novel!Ah, The Stand?

To die young or old is irrelevent. To be saved for eternity is paramount.
Amen brother, amen! Halleluja! Halleluja! Judgement Day has come! Let the holy market deside who passes on to eternity, and who sides with the Devil!The Lord is here, the Lord is...*begings flapping arms like a chicken, falls with a loud crack, enters seizure and bits off tounge, blood begins to pool in the mouth, and death soon follows after the sound of gurgling*

"If Pandemic Strikes, Who do We Save?"

[ Taking this thread seriously, unlike some others I could mention! :p ]

It's unlikely to happen this way, but my prefernces would be, indescending order of importance:

1. Small children between 1 month and 5 years

2. Young people between the ages of 16 - 27

3. Children between 5 years and 16

4. Adults between 27 and 50

5. Olders from 50 on up

Eutrusca is not saving himself!:eek:

Eutrusca is not saving himself!:eek:
Like the birdflu would stand a chance!

Like the birdflu would stand a chance!
ROFLMFAO!!! :D

Unless you have a weakened immune system (AIDS, etc), or are very old, you have a 98% chance of just being sick for a week.And 2% of dying.
Besides which, having a strong immune system may in fact be what does you in. The spanish flu didn't kill the young and elderly, it killed those whose immune system overreacted so badly it killed them.

Anyway. Even if it doesn't kill too many people, it will still severely disrupt life. Most people don't want to take a 2% risk of dying.
Want to take a guess how willing people will be to still transport goods to the city, if they don't get vaccin/anti-viral? I'd think it's a priority to make sure the cities don't starve. Likewise that food is continued to be produced (or imported); another group that probably won't feel like showing up to work, unless they get anti-virals. Then there's doctors and other healthworkers, needed to take care of the sick; police and army to prevent rioting and keep affected areas quarantained. And we're fast running out of vaccin and anti-virals already.
We'd probably want to ensure everyone has electricity, gas and water as well. Water's a given, gas will be needed for heating if it's winter and also for cooking (although frankly, people should be happy enough to eat bread if that's what it takes to keep them alive), and electricity will be needed to keep people informed, otherwise they'll be even more restless and riotous than otherwise. Oh yeah, and someone should definitely come round to collect the garbage. It's not like we need anything more to make us ill.
My bet would be to make sure there are people around to keep society running while the disease passes over, rather than safe those who'd you'd hope can rebuild it after it has collapsed.

"If Pandemic Strikes, Who do We Save?"
1. Small children between 1 month and 5 years

Why save the kids? They're not much use for anything, and you can replace them within six years.

Not that I'd be so altruistic myself. I'd vaccinate my friends, and me if there's some left (I've not been ill with 'flu ever, I'm not about to start now). Everyone else? Meh, I don't care, to be honest.

But really. What's the big fuss? Asia, population about a billion, 60 people have died. So, if it comes to Britain, population 60 million, you'd expect... 3.6 deaths. About a similar lethality to putting your socks on in the morning, I think.

But it sells newspapers!

Why save the kids? They're not much use for anything, and you can replace them within six years.Not only that, replacing them is fun to do as well.

Not that I'd be so altruistic myself. I'd vaccinate my friends, and me if there's some left (I've not been ill with 'flu ever, I'm not about to start now). Everyone else? Meh, I don't care, to be honest.Well, you have to safe your personal supply line. At least a farmer and someone with a truck. Unless you already have one among your friends.
And you may need some help to fight off all the people trying to steal your food if there isn't any for anyone else.

But really. What's the big fuss? Asia, population about a billion, 60 people have died.Of +/- 250 infected, wasn't it? In relatively sparsely populated areas.
It's not the current strain they're worried about, they're worried about what it may turn into. The strain is deadly enough; but not yet virulent enough to cause a pandemic. But if it swaps a few genes with a human influenza virus it might be virulent enough to sweep the globe in a few weeks or months.

But I guess all this sceptisism beats unbridled panic. I just hope that if people start dropping dead by the dozen people won't stay so sceptical, or start panicking instead.

There's an estimated chance of a major pandemic of once every 40 year, so that's just 2.5% that it's next year. With a deadliness of 2%, it's an added risk of dying next year of 0.05%. So in that sense nothing to worry about. Unless it actually happens.

As long as by "makers," Myrmidonisia, you mean the people who actually, you know, make things and not the rich people who hire them and then leech off their wealth, then I'd be willing to go along with makers. Given your post history, however, I suspect that's not who you're talking about.

Why save the kids? They're not much use for anything, and you can replace them within six years.

Not that I'd be so altruistic myself. I'd vaccinate my friends, and me if there's some left (I've not been ill with 'flu ever, I'm not about to start now). Everyone else? Meh, I don't care, to be honest.

But really. What's the big fuss? Asia, population about a billion, 60 people have died. So, if it comes to Britain, population 60 million, you'd expect... 3.6 deaths. About a similar lethality to putting your socks on in the morning, I think.

But it sells newspapers!
They are concerned that it will mutate and be transmissible between humans. Right now, it only jumps from birds ( primarily chickens ) to humans. If it mutates ( some say WHEN it mutates! ), it will spread like wildfire because of air travel.

They are concerned that it will mutate and be transmissible between humans. Right now, it only jumps from birds ( primarily chickens ) to humans. If it mutates ( some say WHEN it mutates! ), it will spread like wildfire because of air travel.
The last thing I read about it (or maybe heard on the radio) was that it had spread from human to human, but not to a third host. In other words, the virus wasn't strong enough to make a second jump, and it dies out in the person it jumped to. If (again, or when) it mutates and can make the second jump, then we're in a world of shit.

The last thing I read about it (or maybe heard on the radio) was that it had spread from human to human, but not to a third host. In other words, the virus wasn't strong enough to make a second jump, and it dies out in the person it jumped to. If (again, or when) it mutates and can make the second jump, then we're in a world of shit.
As I have been at pains to point out, almost from my very first post on here, the universe is a very dangerous place for humans and other small, furry mammals. :(

As I have been at pains to point out, almost from my very first post on here, the universe is a very dangerous place for humans and other small, furry mammals. :(
Yep--but it's often more dangerous for organisms who come into conflict with us humans. My first Zoology professor pointed that out to us time and again--organisms that get in the way of homo sapiens don't do so well in the long run.

Yep--but it's often more dangerous for organisms who come into conflict with us humans. My first Zoology professor pointed that out to us time and again--organisms that get in the way of homo sapiens don't do so well in the long run.
True ... and sad. :(

Let's just say that the Bird Flu has arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the way it has spread, pharmaceutical companies have had a chance to develop a reasonable effective vaccine. The problem is that the quantities are limited.

Who do we vaccinate?
Makers -- people that can be counted on to rebuild society

Takers -- people that can't afford a cup of coffee

Lottery -- let's be 'fair'

Market -- Probably results in choice number one.

There's a lot of what-ifs here. Can society be rebuilt by Takers? Will people stand by and let the Makers buy all the vaccine? Maybe quotas are the answer?

How 'bout it?

people who will be in the migrationary path of the bloody birds

save useful people like nurses *is not at all biased*

save useful people like nurses *is not at all biased*
Of course not! Oh, heaven forbid! Heh! :rolleyes:

Of course not! Oh, heaven forbid! Heh! :rolleyes:
it's not my fault i'm useful :rolleyes:

it's not my fault i'm useful :rolleyes:
Oh ... you're "useful" all right! And HOW! :D

I voted Makers (ie. People with useful professions).
I decided to be brutally objective. So, these aren't the decisions that I would necissarially want to make, but if I were in charge, they're the decisions I would make.

Priorities like this, top-down, until the least desirable saving-group:

1) anyone with a medical profession (doctors, dentists, surgeons, nurses)
2)people with a working knowledge of politics and society. Because if anyone thinks that humanity could actually survive and function in the advent of a major pandemic, you'd be in for a nasty shock. Anarchy blows. Just like communism does.
3) People with sound agricultural knowledge. Farmers, basically. Preferrably able to grow crops, in case the virus eventually mutated to effect more animals. Of course, we would still need them, but the main focus would have to be grain
4) People who can manufacture the things needed to make medicines and what not, things needed for survival/prolonged health
5) At least 70% of people should have tertiary education, in my opinion. Loosing knowledge sucks.
6) People who can do physical labour. So, healthy 14-40 ideal working age group, with probably 18-27 being optimum. And then, being honest, probably males would be preferrable. Because they are stronger, in general.
7) Healthy people outside of 6. The old, the sick, the disabled would not be a priority, unless they have an integral part to play in terms of knowledge.
8) People with a trade that's useful to the survival of the species (ie. not things like hairdressing.), brick layers, blacksmiths, woodworkers, seamstresses (or to be more politically correct but less cool, clothes-makers)
9) Salesmen/merchants - because people are too fixated on money to let it go. You need people who are able to keep the market going.

And I think that people who had been dole-bludgers (or the international equivalent... dole = payout from government for unemployed) would not be a priority. A society re-forming itself does not need parasites.
Unfortunately, I would also say that young children would not be a priority. They're not very useful, as someone's already pointed out.

I think also, within these categories, the families would be kept (as in partner, children, or at the least partner) in order to encourage, well... you know, continuation of the species. Unless they had serious inheritable diseases or disabilities.

And that is my harsh run-down for survival.
Or you could put it more simply (I'm using medieval-ish terms because it delights me to do so)

Nobles = people with knowledge, money and power. These will ensure that society's delicate beehive doesn't crumble into pieces. They'll also ensure that no rebellions happen. Rebellions in my opinion are not cool.

but... poor unskilled nobles can't survive without their leity.

And that is my two cents worth. From an objective stance.

people who will be in the migrationary path of the bloody birdsYep, that's a good idea. Innoculate people likely to be infected and those likely to spread it.
It might be a good precaution to innoculate pilots and flight attendents (As soon as there is an actual outbreak it's better to just ban flight for the while being; I don't think that's a step people will want to take before, too inconvenient. Prevention in general is inconvenient, unfortunately.)

Yep, that's a good idea. Innoculate people likely to be infected and those likely to spread it.
It might be a good precaution to innoculate pilots and flight attendents (As soon as there is an actual outbreak it's better to just ban flight for the while being; I don't think that's a step people will want to take before, too inconvenient. Prevention in general is inconvenient, unfortunately.)

Hehe. I didn't even think of prevention. Heh.

Hm, it's a good point you make about prevention though - people are stupid. Even when we know something big and bad is coming, we'll "deal with it later" instead of dealing with a little inconvenience/expense now. (Fossil fuels, anyone?)

5) At least 70% of people should have tertiary education, in my opinion. Loosing knowledge sucks.There's libraries, computers and wikipedia. I don't think we'd loose knowledge, we wouldn't gain much new knowledge either if we lost those people. But then if we're rebuilding society (which is a stretch), we don't exactly need fundamental theoretical physics.

6) People who can do physical labour. So, healthy 14-40 ideal working age group, with probably 18-27 being optimum. And then, being honest, probably males would be preferrable. Because they are stronger, in general.I'm not sure how important physical strength would be. And there is something to be said for getting the population up again. Also, I suspect a good balance between men and women makes for a more stable society.

9) Salesmen/merchants - because people are too fixated on money to let it go. You need people who are able to keep the market going.I don't think you need these people to keep the market going. There will naturally emerge people from the other groups that will want to seel things. Last thing I need after an apocalyptic event is a used caresalesmen selling me a loaf of bread for a month wages.

And I think that people who had been dole-bludgers (or the international equivalent... dole = payout from government for unemployed) would not be a priority. A society re-forming itself does not need parasites. You have to look at why they're unemployed though. Although, I suppose you picked out the usefull ones in group 6 already.

For the rest, personally, I'd shift a few of the priorities. But a good breakdown imo.

Since makers are also takers, I chose the lottery, though "to be fair" lotteries can be "arranged."

Ideally, vaccinate health providers and the people that spread the flu most effectively.

Recent studies indicate that vaccinating children between the ages of 4 and 6 is far more effective at stopping the spread of flu than vaccinating old people. Studies in both Japan and the US show that by NOT vaccinating old people and by making sure you vaccinate small children, fewer people get the flu, fewer people die of it - and most amazingly - fewer older people die.

Vaccinate where it's most effective, and you save the most people.

Recent studies indicate that vaccinating children between the ages of 4 and 6 is far more effective at stopping the spread of flu than vaccinating old people. That's true as a preventative measure, since children go to school and come into contact with eachother and other people a lot.
But once there's a pandemic breaking out you can simply close schools (and churches and other gathering places) for the time being. Thus preventing anyone infecting anyone there, without 'wasting' vaccine.
I think isolation of effected people and areas are important. (And of course to treat the people affected, the sooner they're better the less likely they'll spread the disease). Travel should be limited.
The BBC once had a docudrama about a similar 'what if..' scenario. Quite informative; it also pointed out the risk of riots, people storming the hospitals to demand vaccines, etc .

So, healthy 14-40 ideal working age group, with probably 18-27 being optimum. And then, being honest, probably males would be preferrable. Because they are stronger, in general.

Two problems with that (and I fall in the 14-40 healthy male group). First, when it comes to physical labor, women generally have more stamina than men, even if they are less dense muscularly speaking. Second, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, when it comes to a population argument, one man can impregnate a thousand women (given enough time and Vitamin E), but the reverse is true. If we're talking about needing to repopulate the species (and it would have to be a hell of a pandemic for that), women are more important than men.

, one man can impregnate a thousand women (given enough time and Vitamin E), but the reverse is true.

One woman can impregnate a thousand men?

What people should be planning for is how any government will deal with a pandemic in the complete absence of a vaccine - which is a likely scenario.

No matter what anyone does in that case, people will not be satisfied with the government response. There will be riots at hospitals. There will be mass panic. There will be economic disruption on a worldwide scale.

And people wonder why I'm sitting on a pile of guns, ammunition, water, and food.

One woman can impregnate a thousand men?
Doh! Supposed to say not true. :(

What people should be planning for is how any government will deal with a pandemic in the complete absence of a vaccine - which is a likely scenario.Our goverment promises to have 3 million anti-viral doses before the end of the year, and 4.5 million somewhere next year (enough for over 1/4th of our population)
So that's not so bad, and should suffice to isolate outbreaks.

Of course there's always the question abotu whether we can actually trust them. Governments are funny that way, promising one thing, delivering another.

And people wonder why I'm sitting on a pile of guns, ammunition, water, and food.Yeah, I'd think a chair or the sofa would be a lot more comfortable. :P

I propose we save the rich white guys first, who are we to go against hundruds of years of tradition?

Everyone but Bob Dole. I can't stand the sonofabitch. :headbang:

If a pandemic occurs, it could do wonders for our immigration policy, and would cut welfare down considerably

Everyone but Bob Dole. I can't stand the sonofabitch. :headbang:
Why?

I propose we save the rich white guys first, who are we to go against hundruds of years of tradition?
Neal Boortz would certainly agree with you.

If a pandemic occurs, it could do wonders for our immigration policy, and would cut welfare down considerably

The nice thing about an airborne virus is that it doesn't care how much money you have as long as there's not a vaccine available.

And there are NO vaccines for H5N1. And even after starting production, there won't be more than a few million doses after six months. And only a few tens of millions in another six months.

For everyone in the world.

Probably kill a lot of rich people as well.

The nice thing about an airborne virus is that it doesn't care how much money you have as long as there's not a vaccine available.

And there are NO vaccines for H5N1. And even after starting production, there won't be more than a few million doses after six months. And only a few tens of millions in another six months.

For everyone in the world.

Probably kill a lot of rich people as well.

But we can afford private healthcare, the facilities wherein contain bird flu vaccines.:)

Finally, an oppurtunity to cull those degenerates who contributes nothing to society.

telephone handset sanitisers.

been said yet?


edit:

Finally, an oppurtunity to cull those degenerates who contributes nothing to society.
is he serious or have i finally lost my sense of humour :confused:

So far no-one anywhere has mentioned plastic bubbles. A bubble per person, with docking ports at air/food/water/medical stations etc.

Let's just say that the Bird Flu has arrived in the Western Hemisphere. Because of the way it has spread, pharmaceutical companies have had a chance to develop a reasonable effective vaccine. The problem is that the quantities are limited.

Who do we vaccinate?
Makers -- people that can be counted on to rebuild society

Takers -- people that can't afford a cup of coffee

Lottery -- let's be 'fair'

Market -- Probably results in choice number one.

There's a lot of what-ifs here. Can society be rebuilt by Takers? Will people stand by and let the Makers buy all the vaccine? Maybe quotas are the answer?

How 'bout it?

Who should "we" save? Well, that will depend on who "we" happens to be. One might suggest that the people who actually made the vaccine should probably use it on themselves first :).

Who should "we" save? Well, that will depend on who "we" happens to be. One might suggest that the people who actually made the vaccine should probably use it on themselves first :).
Damn skippy--you working on that, Bottle? :D

Damn skippy--you working on that, Bottle? :D
Er, of course not...I pursue knowledge purely for its own sake, never for personal gain...;)

Me.



And Myrth.

Our goverment promises to have 3 million anti-viral doses before the end of the year, and 4.5 million somewhere next year (enough for over 1/4th of our population)
So that's not so bad, and should suffice to isolate outbreaks.

Of course there's always the question abotu whether we can actually trust them. Governments are funny that way, promising one thing, delivering another.

Yeah, I'd think a chair or the sofa would be a lot more comfortable. :P

Yes, they promise.

However, if no vaccine exists (and one doesn't at the moment) such promises are rather empty. An order for several million of something that hasn't even been designed yet seems like a rather pointless thing to rely on.

Yes, they promise.

However, if no vaccine exists (and one doesn't at the moment) such promises are rather empty. An order for several million of something that hasn't even been designed yet seems like a rather pointless thing to rely on.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/051102/1185705.html?.v=1

However, if no vaccine exists (and one doesn't at the moment) such promises are rather empty. An order for several million of something that hasn't even been designed yet seems like a rather pointless thing to rely on.There is a difference between vaccines and (general purpose) anti-virals.
The latter exist (f.i tamiflu); they're just not readily available in large quantity yet. The former have to be based on the actual pathogen, so they can't exist until the killer virus emerges, is found, and isolated (although we can hope a vaccine for the current virus would give some protection).

There's libraries, computers and wikipedia. I don't think we'd loose knowledge, we wouldn't gain much new knowledge either if we lost those people. But then if we're rebuilding society (which is a stretch), we don't exactly need fundamental theoretical physics.

True, but I'd still say that raising the average level of intelligence and appliable knowledge would be a good thing.
By the way, wikipedia - lol :)


I'm not sure how important physical strength would be. And there is something to be said for getting the population up again. Also, I suspect a good balance between men and women makes for a more stable society.


Hm, true. To be honest, I actually stopped thinking about the Bird Flu and was thinking more apocalyptic cataclysm, hehe. But yeah. Hm. I mentioned somewhere that partners of any of the chosen survivors (be they male or female) would be "chosen" too, didn't I? Because, fate of the world or not, I wouldn't like going through all that pregnancy stuff without some emotional gain. Yich.


I don't think you need these people to keep the market going. There will naturally emerge people from the other groups that will want to seel things. Last thing I need after an apocalyptic event is a used caresalesmen selling me a loaf of bread for a month wages.

A good point.


You have to look at why they're unemployed though. Although, I suppose you picked out the usefull ones in group 6 already.
Hm, I did think of that when I was writing it, but again I was thinking more "apocalyptic cataclysm" than "bird flu oh noes"... basically I was being brutal, in that there may not be time/resources to find out why these people aren't contributing to society.


For the rest, personally, I'd shift a few of the priorities. But a good breakdown imo.
Thanks. What'd you shift, if you don't mind my asking?

Like the birdflu would stand a chance!
But when people are stampeding for the Tamiflu then what?

There is a difference between vaccines and (general purpose) anti-virals.
The latter exist (f.i tamiflu); they're just not readily available in large quantity yet. The former have to be based on the actual pathogen, so they can't exist until the killer virus emerges, is found, and isolated (although we can hope a vaccine for the current virus would give some protection).

Tamiflu has already been shown to be ineffective in humans against H5N1.

They can stockpile it, but it's not going to save anyone.

Two problems with that (and I fall in the 14-40 healthy male group). First, when it comes to physical labor, women generally have more stamina than men, even if they are less dense muscularly speaking. Second, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, when it comes to a population argument, one man can impregnate a thousand women (given enough time and Vitamin E), but the reverse is true. If we're talking about needing to repopulate the species (and it would have to be a hell of a pandemic for that), women are more important than men.

I didn't know about women having a better stamina. I was just thinking of my own lack of physical strength.
Hehe. As I metnioned before, I actually accidentally switched into " planning survival from apocalyptic cataclysm" mode rather than "pandemic mode." Hehe. :)
I did mention, though, that any people who would be saved who had partners (male or female), they would also be saved? I appreciate the need to repopulate the species, but I for one don't think I would be very co-operative if I just had to have children with no emotional ties.
I dissagree with women being more important, because while it may be true initially, 1000 odd children with one father are going to result with some severe inbreeding problems, eventually. So a more even ballance is required from the start, I think.

The poorest of the poor.

That's who you save.

The poorest of the poor.

That's who you save.

why? How could they uphold human society?

The poorest of the poor.

That's who you save.

They have a tendency to survive. Mostly because their larger numbers allow them to sustain great losses, and still have someone left.

Also, if the economy goes into major depression as a result of a pandemic, we'll all be poor in short order.

They have a tendency to survive. Mostly because their larger numbers allow them to sustain great losses, and still have someone left.

Also, if the economy goes into major depression as a result of a pandemic, we'll all be poor in short order.


I suppose that's true. But they're also more likely to have other diseases.

Not neccisarially... I mean, The Great Depression if the 30's only really effected the lower working classes. Middle Working Class actually generaly benefited, and the upper classes were mildly inconvenienced. That's how it was in Australia, at least.

Of course, we could compare it to the economic repercussionsof the Black Death, whih is an entirely different story.

"Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition."

Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute.

Arrrrr!

Restrains right arm with left.

Are you guys sure that you're talking about HN51? A plan to completely rebuild society seems somewhat drastic. Civilization was not destroyed in 1918 or the fourteenth century, and it's unlikely that this will even approach either event in magnitude.

Also, if the economy goes into major depression as a result of a pandemic, we'll all be poor in short order.
I suspect the opposite will be true in the months and years following a worldwide pandemic. All those left will suddenly be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

Civilization was not destroyed in 1918 or the fourteenth century, and it's unlikely that this will even approach either event in magnitude.

We can dream, can't we?

We can dream, can't we?
I'm putting my money on 2012. I'm planning to avoid urban centres from that point on. Or preparing, is more like it.

Yep, that's a good idea. Innoculate people likely to be infected and those likely to spread it.
It might be a good precaution to innoculate pilots and flight attendents (As soon as there is an actual outbreak it's better to just ban flight for the while being; I don't think that's a step people will want to take before, too inconvenient. Prevention in general is inconvenient, unfortunately.)

exactly. prevention is better than cure. glad someone agrees