NOTE: This Discussion is closed.

DISCUSSION: What will make the Prioritization Guidance Acceptable?

Discussion List > Discussion: What will make the Prioritization Guidance Acceptable? > Comment

COMMENT: High CFR = catastrophe .. public must be prepared..

Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 9:53 AM

I have said repeatedly that in a high CFR pandemic we need to make sure that the grid stays up, infrastructure operates, food is available, water is drinkable.

But on top of all that.. it is the first 6 months that I have the strongest feelings about. The public has not been "informed" of what is coming.... even if you use 2.5% as worst case.

On one hand gov plans say be prepared for a 6-8-12 week event. yet tell the public to have 2 weeks of supplies. It doesnt make any sense.

This need to change now.

« Previous Comment

| Next Comment »

COMMENT THREAD

VIEW: Outline Full Text COMMENT ORDER: Newest First Oldest First

Make a severe pandemic = 60% CFR

Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 07:07 AM

Pls clarify why increased CFR is so significant

Submitted by Nicholas Dewar on 12/6/07 07:30 AM
- Why "severe" should be considered a 60-80% CFR
  
  Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 07:42 AM
  - defining the pandemic severity
    
    Submitted by Brant Goode on 12/6/07 09:14 AM
    - High CFR = catastrophe .. public must be prepared..
      
      Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 09:53 AM
      - My recommendations to my friends, colleagues and family are
        
        Submitted by larry wright on 12/6/07 11:05 AM
    - Short Incubation period
      
      Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 09:57 AM
  - High CAR and high CFR are possible,
    
    Submitted by larry wright on 12/6/07 10:51 AM
Severe

Submitted by Catherine Jackie Mitchell on 12/6/07 07:32 AM
18 - 40 years old?

Submitted by Marianne Yourdon on 12/6/07 07:34 AM
- Over 40? are you critical?
  
  Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 07:44 AM
  - Vax based on Job Function
    
    Submitted by Tammy Brown on 12/6/07 10:36 AM
    - what if theres not enough vax for all of them?
      
      Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 12:43 PM
- Can we consider what would make the Guidance ACCEPTABLE, rather than what would make it better?
  
  Submitted by Nicholas Dewar on 12/6/07 07:58 AM
  - Acceptable guidance
    
    Submitted by Bill Pritchard on 12/6/07 08:24 AM
  - For me it is facing the realities of H5N1 and a high CFR
    
    Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 08:52 AM
    - I agree with you Roy
      
      Submitted by Catherine Jackie Mitchell on 12/6/07 09:00 AM
      - regardless of how many die from the next influenza pandemic
        
        Submitted by larry wright on 12/6/07 11:09 AM
  - Hardcore honesty
    
    Submitted by Cairelle Perilloux on 12/6/07 09:30 AM
    - Life or Death
      
      Submitted by Catherine Jackie Mitchell on 12/6/07 10:55 AM
  - Acceptable guidance
    
    Submitted by larry wright on 12/6/07 11:18 AM
  - recommendation by a grassroots org
    
    Submitted by Catherine Jackie Mitchell on 12/6/07 12:15 PM
  - For the Guidance to be acceptable
    
    Submitted by Katharine Fisher on 12/6/07 04:50 PM
  - How will the public accespt and respect this guidance?
    
    Submitted by Caroline Bridgers on 12/6/07 05:16 PM
- Over 40's may survive infection
  
  Submitted by Katharine Fisher on 12/6/07 08:21 AM
  - Guidance may target the wrong people
    
    Submitted by Marianne Yourdon on 12/6/07 09:00 AM
    - They are using 1918 as an historical base point
      
      Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 09:05 AM
      - So, to make the prioritization ACCEPTABLE we'd need additional guidance for more severe panflu?
        
        Submitted by Nicholas Dewar on 12/6/07 11:27 AM
        
        YES - To make the prioritization ACCEPTABLE we'd need additional guidance for more severe panflu
        
        Submitted by Roy Kamen on 12/6/07 12:47 PM