# 536
In the wake of the UK's Winter Willow exercise, we are finally starting to get some details on their planning, and `thinking' about a pandemic. Monday's TimesOnline has an excellent article with more detail than we've seen before.
Dissecting it will require more than one blog.
While the lead to the story concerns the anticipated need for 400,000 graves, and how officials will deal with that contingency, the real `meat' of this article appears further down, near the bottom.
According to the article, the UK is expecting, in a worse case scenario, up to 400,000 deaths during a pandemic. From that, we can deduce pretty closely what type of pandemic they envision. The population of the UK is roughly 60 million. Assuming the ubiquitous 35% attack rate, that would mean 21 million would be stricken. 400K deaths would work out to be a 2% CFR (case fatality rate).
Or basically, a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu.
According to this reportage, the `crisis targets' during a pandemic include:
—The aim is to keep the nation open for business
—International flights will not be banned, although airline companies must prevent the sick from travelling
—There are to be no road blocks outside cities
—Ministers do not want armed troops on the streets or afflicted communities treated like 17th century plague villages
—Police will guard antiviral drug supplies and vaccines
—Employers are to stagger working hours so that a reduced public transport system will be able to cope
—Healthy people are expected to go to work. An absenteeism rate of 15-30 per cent is expected in each business including MPs and peers in Parliament, which itself will not close
I will confess, going in, that I have very mixed feelings about his approach.
The admission that their goal is to keep the nation `open for business' will likely be derided by some as trading human lives to save the economy. There will be many who see this as a way for the rich to stay rich, at the expense of the expendable worker.
While there may be some truth to that sentiment, it isn't as easy of a decision as many would have us believe to shut things down for the duration of a pandemic, one that could last many months, or conceivably more than a year.
Like it or not, for a society highly dependent on imported and processed foods, luxuries like clean running water and electricity, civil order, and some standard of health care, for these things to remain functioning at all, many people will have to go to work.
Even during a pandemic.
If these things fail, then the toll on society and the loss of life will likely be higher than from just the virus. Imagine what life would be reduced to if the water supplies were no longer potable, if the power were out, or if the sewers began to back up in the cities. Add in civil unrest, food shortages, and a loss of healthcare, and the ramifications become enormous.
There will be workers that will likely escape this mandate. Non essential retail shops, movie theatre houses, sporting arenas, restaurants, and other sectors that would likely shut down during a pandemic. With few people out buying luxury items, many manufacturing jobs will be lost.
For many, it won't be business as usual.
But from this report, it is obvious that the authorities expect most workers to report to work. Healthcare workers, utility workers, food industry workers, delivery drivers, etc. And these people will need the services of mechanics, and petrol stations, and even restaurants. Clerks and other white collar workers would be needed as well.
How people will respond to this idea during a pandemic is unknown. It will be a hard `sell' to convince people to leave the perceived safety of their homes to go into work. Not without some sort of `hammer'.
Many flu watchers have wondered why many governments haven't been more proactive encouraging people to stockpile food and supplies for a pandemic. Here in the U.S., only a 2-week stockpile is recommended, despite the fact that a pandemic would be expected to last for months. In Europe, stockpiling food is almost never mentioned.
I suspect here, we have the answer. Well stocked people would be less inclined to go out into a pandemic to work. Those with empty cupboards would be more easily induced to show up at their jobs.
Cynical? Perhaps. But it makes some sense. If the priority of the UK is to keep the nation `open for business', the fewer self sufficient and well-stocked citizens, the better. Workers will likely brave a pandemic if the choice is that, or watch their families go hungry.
And the reality is, there is simply no way for more than a small percentage of society to prepare to stay home for months, anyway. There simply isn't enough food in the supply chain, and many would be unable to afford it, even if they could be convinced of the threat.
Three other `targets' in the list pertain to this idea of maintaining a sense of normalcy.
—There are to be no road blocks outside cities
—Ministers do not want armed troops on the streets or afflicted communities treated like 17th century plague villages
—Healthy people are expected to go to work. An absenteeism rate of 15-30 per cent is expected in each business including MPs and peers in Parliament, which itself will not close
The goal here is readily transparent. Try to maintain, as best as possible, the illusion of business as usual during a pandemic. The big questions are 1) will it work? and 2) Is it the right thing to do?
As to the first question, we won't know until the time comes. If the pandemic mortality rate is higher than projected, if fear of catching the virus is paramount, or if civil unrest becomes a problem, or supplies of petrol (gasoline here in the states) or food becomes compromised, then keeping their nation, or any other, `open for business' is going to be very difficult.
It may even be impossible.
As far as whether it is the `right thing to do', governments are facing what is known as a Morton's Fork; a problem with no good answer.
They can either encourage people to go into work, knowing a certain number of them will succumb to the virus for their trouble, or they can accept when people refuse to work, and watch the economy, and the infrastructure fail.
As individuals, we tend to think in terms of what is best for ourselves, or our families. A government hasn't that luxury, they must think in terms of what is best for the nation. And most governments will opt for sacrificing lives in order to preserve their nation and economy, because it serves the greater good.
It is the rationale we use to send teenagers off to fight, and oft times die, in foreign wars. And it is the rationale that will likely be used in a pandemic.
No, it isn't a pretty thought. But it is the reality of the situation.
There should be room, however, for some adjustments.
Young adults are expected to be particularly susceptible to this virus, and many of their jobs could be handled by older individuals. Single parents, whose loss would compound societal problems by creating a large number of orphans, should receive special dispensation so they can stay home with their kids.
Households with two working parents should be allowed to choose one or the other to go forth and work, assuming they both hold essential jobs. Non-essential workers should, during the height of a pandemic wave, be furloughed. Yes, the economy will take a terrible hit, but I suspect that would happen anyway.
In this way, perhaps we can keep critical systems running without unnecessarily compounding the Butcher's Bill.
No, it isn't a good solution. There is no good solution to trying to keep society running quasi-normally during a pandemic.
There are just some that aren't as bad as others.
