# 584
"You're going to be staying home for one year. There will be no school, there will be no work. All we'll be doing is trying to keep ourselves alive." - Richard Canas, director of the New Jersey State Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness
As I read various pandemic plans, and models of pandemic impacts, I'm struck by one almost universal assumption: That people will continue normally during a pandemic; going to work, paying their bills, and only those directly sickened will opt out of going to work.
And from nearly every government's perspective, that's what they want and need. They want normalcy, business as usual as much as is possible, and as small of a disruption to the economy as can be managed.
Our government's biggest fear is not that 2 million people in the United States will die during a pandemic, it's that 150 million workers will lock themselves in their homes for months and refuse to work in a pandemic.
And when you look at it from a macro perspective, they have a right to be worried.
Individuals are likely to look at the risks during a pandemic and make decisions based on what is best for themselves or their immediate family. And in most cases, not getting sick and dying tops their list.
Governments don't have that luxury, of course. They are charged with keeping the infrastructure running, the country secure, and the economy stable.
And here we have a genuine conflict of interests.
If large segments of the population, fearing infection, refuse to go out and work during a pandemic then the government's ability to keep the infrastructure, security, and economy on track fall apart. And the ramifications of that are, at least in the eyes of government officials, greater than any losses we might sustain from the disease.
The problem is, they are probably right.
It takes warm bodies to keep the power grid running, potable water flowing through municipal water pipes, hospitals open for business, and streets safe and secure. Crops won't pick themselves, or magically be processed, packaged, and delivered to stores without the aid of millions of workers. It will take literally millions of people willing to work during a pandemic to ensure that these, and other essential services are maintained.
And so most officials dare not even suggest that people might not work. The opening quote in this essay, by Richard Canas, is a notable exception.
Should the government allow the grid to fail, or should water and sewer services be compromised, or food deliveries cut off, then the toll of a pandemic will certainly grow beyond just those who would die from the disease.
Among health care workers recently polled, people who are likely more cognizant of the dangers of a pandemic than the average worker, as many as 80% stated they might not report for work. That number has had to of sent a shiver through official channels.
In my two years of talking to people on the Internet from all walks of life about a pandemic, I'd guess that 80% of them plan to hunker down and stay home during a pandemic. Even if it lasts for months.
The fear of contracting the virus, or bringing it home to their spouse or kids, overrides any other concerns. And quite frankly, it's hard to condemn anyone for having that attitude. The H5N1 virus, to date, has been particularly lethal.
The question then becomes, how will governments deal with massive absenteeism?
Last year the legislature in Ontario, Canada tried to pass a law which would mandate that any `reasonably qualified' person show up for health care duty during a pandemic crisis, and it included penalties of up to 1 year in jail, and a $100,000 fine for every day of non-compliance.
This proposed law nearly caused a riot among health care providers.
That law, Bill 56, underwent considerable revision and a far less draconian version was finally approved. But it shows that some governments are looking for a hammer.
For now, here in the United States and in the UK, the ploy seems to be `talking up' the idea of working during a pandemic. The UK has stated their number one priority during a pandemic is to keep `Britain open for business', and that people were `expected to show up for work' during a pandemic.
How they plan to `encourage' people during a pandemic to do that is unknown.
During the 1918 Spanish Flu, the US government decreed that newspapers were not allowed to report the true extent of the pandemic, and most complied. It was common to see articles dismissing the Spanish Flu as nothing more than a seasonal influenza outbreak, and denying rumors of high death tolls.
Today, with the Internet, and competitive independent news agencies, hiding the true extent of a pandemic would be more difficult. But there are ways to `soften' the image of a pandemic, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them employed. Official death tally's could be delayed, for instance, until the cause of death could be determined.
And that could take months, or even years.
The limited supply of antivirals, antibiotics, and food could be used as incentives for those who are willing to work, and once again, I wouldn't be shocked to see that happen.
The last resort, one that some countries will undoubtedly employ, is conscription. Canada has hinted at that possibility. While it would not play well there, or in most free nations, in many parts of the world it may well become a standard tactic.
If there are any official plans to use forced conscription here in the US, I haven't heard about them. It is far more likely that we will see less coercive tactics here. The threat of the loss of jobs, or professional licensing for those who refuse to work.
For Doctors, nurses, and EMT's this might be an effective hammer. But these are threats that will only work on a small segment of the workforce. A food service worker in a hospital, making minimum wage, is unlikely to be swayed by a threat of losing their job.
While our government would be loath to attempt more draconian measures, I honestly don't know how far they would go to keep things running in a pandemic.
My guess is, as far as is necessary.
Of all of the logistical problems during a pandemic, this undoubtedly, will be the toughest one to deal with.
It isn't simply enough to keep cops, firefighters, utility workers, doctors, nurses, and EMT's on the job. They need support staff. And that works its way all the way up the supply chain.
Just a small example: To keep emergency vehicles on the road, you need mechanics. Mechanics need parts.
Will the guy who works the counter at the local auto parts store, the one that stocks brake linings, consider his job `essential' during a pandemic? What about the truck driver who delivers the parts to the store? Or the warehouse workers at the distributor. Or the Clerk that handles the paper work? Or the cashier at the gas station who keeps the delivery trucks fueled?
You can run the same futile exercise with nearly every consumable product, from IV solutions, to fuel, to food, to medicine . . . behind nearly every `essential worker' is an army of largely unseen, but vital support personnel.
If they don't work, then the system collapses. And that could increase the death toll, and economic damage, enormously.
As you can see, the government has a right to be worried. There are millions of essential workers and numerous potential points of failure in our system. Finding a way to keep things running, even on a couple of cylinders, during a pandemic will be a monumental task.
I'm not sure how you convince people to risk exposure to a potentially lethal virus, and risk bringing it home to their families.
Coercion, incentives, threats, bribes?
There are moral, legal, ethical and logistical aspects to a pandemic that most people haven't even considered.
I haven't any magical solution to offer. One that would protect the rights of individuals, keep them safe during a pandemic, and keep the essential infrastructure up and running.
I'm not sure there is one.
