Slashdot Mirror


DoD Declassifies Flu Pandemic Plan Containing Sobering Assumptions

An anonymous reader writes "The Department of Defense has just declassified a copy of its 2009 Concept of Operations Plan for an Influenza Pandemic. Among the Plan's scary yet reasonable assumptions are that in the United States, such a pandemic will kill 2 percent of the infected population, or about 2 million people. The plan also assumes that a vaccine won't be available for at least 4 to 6 months after confirmation of sustained human transmission, and that the weekly vaccine manufacturing capability will only produce 1 percent of the total US vaccine required. State and local governments will be overwhelmed, and civilian mortuary operations will require military augmentation. Measures such as limiting public gatherings, closing schools, social distancing, protective sequestration and masking will be required to limit transmission and reduce illness and death. International and interstate transportation will be restricted to contain the spread of the virus. If a pandemic starts outside the US, it will enter the country at multiple locations and spread quickly to other parts of the country. A related document, CONPLAN 3591-09, was released by DoD in 2010."

22 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess all the Preppers will have the last laugh as they eat their freeze dried food in their bunkers, with gun in lap, waiting for vaccine to become available.

    1. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by ruckc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plan for the worst, Hope for the best.

      Sadly, the plan would be the same for a zombie apocalypse.

    2. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More sadly is that you are comparing a flu pandemic to a fictional zombie problem which hasn't and most likely never will.

    3. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trying to get people to consider preparation for a never to happen zombie apocalypse is effective in getting some people to incidentally prepare for a pandemic outbreak. If it works, then let it go; more people prepared for the inevitable emergency, the better -- it doesn't matter whether it's zombies, flu, or hurricanes.

    4. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's so that we finally have an excuse to go on a shotgun rampage without guilt.

      Plus, we're already all zombies anyway so it doesn't matter much anyway.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The particularly bad ones are specifically bad for healthy adults with a non-compromised immune systems, so let's stop pretending that a healthy immune system protects against dangerous flu variants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

    6. Re:Sounds like an episode of Doomsday Preppers by mjr167 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Emergency prep teams use zombie and alien drills all the time. Zombie == unknown pandemic and aliens == unknown invasion force. If you run the drill using a real world example, people will tailor to that example and then be unprepared for the unknown incident. With zombies and aliens you get to make up the rules and if someone complains about "there is no way that x would ever be able to do y" you can say "Zombies! Now shut up and accept the scenario."

  2. Definition of 'scary' by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't find this scary at all. It's the reality of the world we live in. What would be scary is if the people in charge of managing such a crisis didn't have a plan, and instead choose to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "glory glory halleluja" while the country died. Literally. Why do people always seem to think things like this are "scary"? That kind of attitude is what creates truly scary situations: The kind nobody was prepared for and is now ravaging the population unchecked. That is scary. A plan... that's reassuring.

    Or maybe I'm just from some bizarro alternate universe where being prepared is frightening and living in ignorance is bliss.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Definition of 'scary' by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I find scary is the TFA:

      "The first priority of DOD support in the event of a PI is [REDACTED]".

      OK guys, just what exactly are you up to?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Definition of 'scary' by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I find scary is the TFA:

      "The first priority of DOD support in the event of a PI is [REDACTED]".

      OK guys, just what exactly are you up to?

      The first priority of the DOD is probably the defense of the nation, ie the preservation of the government and therefore civil order. There are 2 ways to survive a pandemic: a coordinated, controlled response, and fragmentation. The first one requires the government to stay intact, to direct the medical and relief responses. They have to ensure that basic services stay intact, that people still have access to food and clean water, and are protected. The bigger cities probably look like Boston did after the bombing. Society stays intact, and the pandemic is defeated by a coordinated response including medical treatment as well as isolation and quarantine of infected populations. In the second response, everyone goes into survival mode: people hole up and refuse human contact, there will probably be looting as well as some killing. Society erodes, and the pandemic peters out through a lack of transmission: carriers die without passing on the virus to others. I think the first option is by far the better of the 2.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Definition of 'scary' by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The first priority of DOD support in the event of a PI is [REDACTED]".

      They're the military. It's redacted because it's not politically fashionable to say what they'd have to do, but put yourself in their shoes and it's obvious: Protect key government officials by evacuating them in secret while reassuring the public everything is fine and they haven't been disappeared and are now in a secret bunker somewhere.

      Military thinking on this is obvious to the point of being painful: You have to coordinate your response to the crisis, and that means first securing your chain of command, then securing communications, then securing your chain of supplies, and then finally deploying resources into the field to secure key assets.

      That's the response plan because that's what the situation dictates. You don't need a security clearance to figure this out... but confirming that's what they would do could complicate those efforts by a panic'd populace. And that's why it's classified. It's not because they're "up to something", it's because sometimes a little knowledge is a bad thing.

      It's like the Joker said; "You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"

      Chew on that awhile when you're wondering next time why the government classifies so many things; It's not because they're up to no good... it's because people are fucking stupid, and they panic at nothing. The whole point of the government during a crisis is to keep people separated and not in large groups where panic and hysteria can take over. Any crisis. It just so happens, it's a particularly good idea during a pandemic.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Definition of 'scary' by EmperorArthur · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I'll bet it's "Put dissidents in FEMA internment camps." Just like in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

      More seriously. While you're probably correct, classifying things for political reasons is almost always a bad thing. This kind of mindset, that normal people can't handle the truth, is what leads to an unaccountable government. Government accountability can only happen with transparency.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  3. Re:Assumptions Seem Dubious by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last great US flu epidemic only killed so many because of the crude state of medicine at the time and uneven sanitation in large U.S. cities. Even a virulent flu would be unlikely to rack up such a death toll in a first world nation.

    That's correct. Instead of a 3-5% mortality rate they're expecting a 2% (TFA) rate.

    Progress as promised!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Redactions by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it disturbing how many redacted gray boxes are found on something clearly marked "unclassified".

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  5. Re:Assumptions Seem Dubious by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

    World Population > The Infected Population.

    The article is calling out a 2% mortality rate for the infected population, not the population of the world.

    This is far less than the 3-5 percent mortality of the world population seen during the 1918 pandemic.

    --
    BMO

  6. Re:Wasted time by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, the 2011 Steven Soderbergh movie Contagion is a fairly realistic depiction of a pandemic and the reaction in the US and around the world. Well-researched, keeps the fearmongering to a minimum while still depicting a scary scenario. Takes into account the role of fringe media in spreading panic/pseudoscientific "cures," among other clever touches. A public health organization arranged for a free screening in my area, with a Q&A period afterward, if that gives you any indication of its accuracy.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  7. Re:Sounds way to optimistic... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say 18-24 months for a vaccine, and 12%-14% population loss due to a real influenza pandemic.

    And your credentials, sir? Internet pundit. Okay, how about a citation? Don't have one of those either. Okay. Well thanks, but I think I'll go with the formerly classified document released by actual experts over your knee-jerk "I think it's optimistic, and here's some numbers I think are more realistic!" post.

    Purely for shits and giggles, I went and looked up what unclassified documents had to say about the likely timeline. Those numbers look similar to what's been revealed in this document. They, uhh, don't look like your numbers. According to WHO, it would take 5-6 months to produce a vaccine. Not nearly two years. If you were right, we would never have a flu vaccine available, yet every year like clockwork they show up at hospitals and clinics with those reminders to get vaccinated before the season starts. So I'm going to go with the DoD, CDC, and WHO's assessment on that timeframe, thanks.

    However, it's just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic either way. Our vaccine production, whether optimistic, or pessimistic, won't matter; From start to finish, the entire pandemic would last from 6-8 to perhaps 12 weeks. That's about as long as it takes the vaccine to take effect. In other words, even if we developed a vaccine the same day as patient zero showed up, and completely eliminated the production side of the equation and assumed limitless vaccines available to everyone, and that somehow, by magical fairy dust, everyone got the vaccine that same day... over a third of the population would still get infected and still suffer whatever the casualty rate is. Knock that timetable out by a month and it's everyone. Vaccine is useless.

    In other words, the strategy outlined by the DoD -- containment and isolation, remains the only effective strategy. A vaccine being put in development would be there to prevent secondary infection and to have confidence that it is safe to end quarantine procedure. That's all a vaccine buys you; Some after-action security. Vaccination is not a priority. Even under super-optimal conditions, it's of limited value to us. We could throw billions at the problem trying to create a rapid response infrastructure and it would amount to exactly dick at a huge cost.

    Now as far as your population loss numbers... There's just no way to predict that with confidence. The numbers they quoted are based on a historical evaluation of data over the last 50 years... which seems reasonable from a statistical standpoint... but the Pandemic of 1918 killed over 90% of the population. It was on par with the Black Death. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario -- the average case is much, much more mild. But we do know it can happen... and it's just a gamble as to when.

    So I'm with the CDC and DoD on this; Containment. Isolation. Quarantine. That's our strategy, and given our current level of technology... it's the only viable one.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  8. Re:Sounds way to optimistic... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    but the Pandemic of 1918 killed over 90% of the population

    Umm, no.

    The 1918 pandemic killed 10-20% of the people infected.

    Note that that particular flu infected ~25% of the world's population.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:That's actually *better* than the Spanish Flu by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another factor is that WWI and medical practices at the time are blamed for making that flu much more deadly. Quoting wikipedia: "In civilian life, natural selection favours a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus"

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  10. Re:Assumptions Seem Dubious by chill · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  11. Re:Sounds way to optimistic... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the case of a real pandemic on such a scale, I think you'd see labs working around the clock for a cure, and many of them. Not only would governments be putting a lot of pressure, the people working there would very likely feel the pain themselves (relatives, friends, etc.). Plus, for all the money grubbers, making a vaccine that needs to be used on millions of people is a surefire way of getting rich.

    It's not labs though, it's raw materials. There's only so many chickens and chicken eggs you can get to grow vaccine from, it can only be done so fast and there's a definite lag in converting existing production lines to create a new vaccine (since everything has to be isolated and grown up).

  12. Re:Assumptions Seem Dubious by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know you're in trouble when Sealand is the answer to a question.

    You know, that statement seems scientifically sound enough to get it's own title.

    The Sealand Conjecture: anytime "move to Sealand" seems like a wise and/or appropriate response, you're already completely fucked.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese