The Pandemic vs. the IT Department

ElsaBorzoi wrote to mention a Network World article suggesting some pandemic preparations for your IT department. From the article: "A survey last month of 300 Minnesota business officials found most thought a flu pandemic would significantly affect their business, but only 18% had preparedness plans in place. The poll sponsored by the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy found that close to two thirds said they were already prepared or somewhat prepared to move employees to remote locations or let them work at home, while 29% said they were not prepared. The H5N1 influenza virus, which originated in Asia, could hit the U.S. this fall, potentially causing an epidemic, the nation's chief avian flu coordinator warned."

Comments

Lacking sense: priorities

[bigberk]

Let's get something clear, "pandemic" doesn't mean a flu that is afflicting employees, so they get a little sniffle and stay home from work until they get better. A mutated H5N1 or similar pandemic, that spreads human to human with something like 50% mortality rate means that public places become a death trap. If you catch the bug and are unable to recover from it, you need to be treated at a hospital... except the hospitals are totally full and there aren't enough health care workers. Have you seen how the major cities are trying to plan for a "pandemic" situation? They are talking about how to deal with piles of corpses once the graveyards are full.

PUBLIC DOESN'T GET IT. If there is a pandemic, you don't go to work. You don't go to the mall, you don't go to school and you don't go out partying on the weekend. This is serious stuff. It hasn't happened yet and let's pray that it does not happen (easy human-to-human spread of lethal virus) but the situation at the IT department is totally irrelevant. Go to your job if you want to die.

Re:Lacking sense: priorities

[scottv67]

If there is a pandemic, you don't go to work.

But what about those of us who work in the I.T. depts of healthcare providers? Wouldn't you want us to go to work during the "pandemic" to make sure that things keep running to handle the large influx of patients at clinics and hospitals?

Somebody's got to be at work to make sure that when you or a relative shows up at the hospital, your electronic records can be accessed, imaging applications are working correctly and medications can be dispensed.

Re:Lacking sense: priorities

[Baddas]

The disparity lies in the fact that some portion of the people who fall ill do not require (or recieve, however one looks at it) hospitalization, either through fast onset of morbidity and mortality (unable to get to a hospital in a town with even fewer ambulances than hospital beds), or through having a lower level of symptoms (not needing hospitalization at all).

For "normal" flu, this level is approximately 1%. However, if we extrapolate from the fact that pandemic flu (of whatever type, be it bird flu or the 1918 flu) often has a mortality rate 25 times that of normal flu (0.1% vs 2.5% for 1918) then you can see that perhaps a quarter of the people would be hospitalized.

Again, this is all guesswork, and either way it's entirely beyond any theoretical capability of the medical system to cope with.

Dual use

[Indigo]

Just remember, the same disaster plan that will keep the company going if half the employees die in a flu pandemic, will keep it going if those same employees are simply laid off. Which is more likely to happen?

The solution where I work...

[Black Art]

If you take five unconnected sick days in a 12 month period, you are subject to disciplinary action. More than that and they can do anything, including firing you. No excuses. (Unless you qualify for short term disability.)

I work for a "Healthcare company".

MOD PARENT UP.

[Saven Marek]

Anyone that became infected and didn't exhibit symptoms wouldn't be included (why would they get tested?), and anyone that died in a remote area wouldn't be included either. The more 'infections' that develop in "1st world" countries the better able we will be to determine the true mortality/morbidity rate of avian influenza in humans.


And this doesn't include a potentially huge number of people who do contract H5N1 flu from birds and display nothing more than normal flu symptoms, get over it in a couple of weeks and go on with their lives.

In hong kong, india and parts of europe people showing non-acute symptoms while testing positive for H5N1 have been detected, and only because they were tested in parallel with those who showed more acute symptoms. Because of the concentration on people who get very very sick the statistics are skewed. It's like a self-selected survey or like saying "76% of people involved in fatal car accidents die" and attempting to use those statistics for car accidents in general.

Re:Winged Monkeys And Tap Dancing Midgets

[Jerf]

By averages, the human population is a bit overdue for one and I don't see what we have done in the last few decades that would necessarily prevent one from taking place again.

Times have really changed. I'm the first to reach for history when it's relevant, but I'm not sure it is in this case. In the plus column, we have incomparably better communication than we did in 1918, and incomparably better detection and tracking. (It is by no means perfect, but good lucking getting a gene sequencing done in 1918.) We are also in general somewhat healthier. (Yes, there's improvements to be made there, too.)

In the minus column, we circulate much more freely than in 1918, and given that we're talking "virus", that's very possibly enough to erase all of the above by itself. Thus, both the

But then again, it may not be. We really don't know, because the unknowns simply swamp the knowns. However, I have to admit that if I had to guess, that if there is a true cycle (and not a statistical anomaly), and we are "overdue", then as we become more and more "overdue", the correct conclusion is that the pluses outweigh the minuses, not that we are more and more likely to have a massive outbreak.

This is in part true exactly because we are vigilant, so this should not be interpreted as a call for less vigilance. This is a call for less pointless worrying. ("Vigilance" is very pointed worrying.)

We're "overdue" for a polio outbreak, but I'm not too worried about it. (I rate a flu outbreak at a much, much higher probablility; I just use this as a more clear example of the point I want to make.)

Note: This is a nuanced message, promoting neither panic, nor complancency. If you interpreted this message in a such a manner, please re-read. Also note the several preceding paragraphs were all predicated on "if there is a true cycle". My real guess is that there isn't; random events can often seem cyclic if you squint at them too much and try to force them to fit a pattern. This puts us even farther into the unknown.

Re:"revolving ill" not a useful concept

[benjj]

That is 2.5-5% of the global population .

Immunize the kids

[Overzeetop]

Yes, yes, I know, there isn't a proven vaccine for H5N1 yet, but the likelihood of creating one is fairly reasonable to expect. So...

Get every shcool age child, especially those under 12, into a clinic to be vaccinated. From the view of protecting the public, the CDCs limits on vaccinations for the elderly, infant, and asthmatic make little sense. Yes, I know - those are the people most likely to die from influenza, they should get vaccinated, too. But little kids are such a strong vector for any disease - primarily due to their lack of proper hygene regimen - that they should really be the ones to target. Keep the kids from getting it and its far less likely to be passed from child to child in school/daycare/playgroup, and then to the rest of the family (including elderly relatives), and on through the chain of human interaction.

I would gladly give up my dose if I knew that every kid in every primary school would get theirs.

BTW - I heard that a bunch of flu vaccine went to waste this year in the US. I'm prat of the problem because I didn't get mine. Why? I wasn't allowed to until after a certain date. By the time that date came around, we were half way through the flu season. I suspect most of us in the "healthy" population figured that by the time we were allowed to get vaccinated and it take full effect, we would be through most of the flu season, and there would be no point. It's like buying disabiliy insurance when your a year or two from retirement...why bother? Good intentions (by the CDC), but poorly implemented. It will only make it harder for the companies making these (relatively) low-margin products to continue.

If it is not a big deal, then why all the panic?

[frank249]

Each year between 50 - 100 people per million of population die from the various forms of influenza that are commonly refered to as flu. Since 1997, only 50 people who had close contact with birds have died from Avian flu. The media is full of reports that this flu has the potential to become a pandemic. If so, it could kill between 5 to 250 million people. Most likely it will only be 5 people ... but it could be 250 million!

So wait a minute, doesn't every disease have the chance to mutate into something much worse not just avian flu? AIDs is incurable, has infected hundreds of millions and is transmited only by contact. What if it mutated so it was spread airborne? Everyday millions of bad things could happen but don't and we are not panicking over all of them.

So ask yourself why all the fuss? What is going on that could benefit from people being distracted?

Could it be the war in Iraq, scandals, economy, politics? Take your pick. We should be demanding the media to focus on the real issues and hold the politician's feet to the fire and not be distracted by nonissues.