Connect with us

Large-Scale Disaster: A Sobering Problem – Requiring A Different Approach

Large-Scale Disaster: A Sobering Problem – Requiring A Different Approach

Published

4 years ago

on

Large-Scale Disaster Coronavirus deaths remote testing COVID-19 pandemic coronavirus stagflation coronavirus COVID-19 diseases virus

Most survival strategies and related tactics today draw upon the methods that worked in much smaller disasters and will likely work to some extent today in similar small-scale disasters. However, large-scale (continental-sized disasters) are quite different in many ways.

Know more about Russia than your friends:

Get our free ebook on how the Soviet Union became Putin's Russia.

Russia eBook

Q1 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Prepaing For A Large-Scale Disaster

Some people assume that all disasters are created equal and that one-size fits-all when it comes to survival strategies and disaster preparedness and response, however that is not the case by any stretch in a large-scale disaster. And when this assumption is proffered to others, it ensures that there will be many more causalities than need be.

As if this writing, FEMA is still proffering a “72-hour” disaster survival kit:  http://www.ready.gov/build-a-kit

I guess the million-dollar question is; what do these people do in a large-scale disaster after their 3-days-worth of food, water and toilet paper are exhausted?

Even the psychological impact of a local disaster is quite different from that of a continental or global scale disaster. In local or regional (small scale) disasters (tornado, hurricane), survivors know that help will be coming and that affects morale and how most survivors react; there is order and cooperation.

But in the case of a global, national or ’continental scale’ event, such as Covid-19, many survivors will within a few weeks realize that nobody is coming to the rescue, because everyone is suddenly thrust into the same desperate situation. This later situation is a game-changer and will certainly create a level of desperation seldom seen.

The current failure by FEMA to properly instruct Americans as to ‘a more realistic level of preparedness‘, such as, having several weeks of supplies, including N-95 masks and toilet paper (as a minimum), will in the event of any large-scale disaster lead to enormous masses of desperate people in the short term. If people had slowly stockpiled enough supplies to weather a few months, there might be a chance for people to organize and form a cooperative effort for some level of recovery, and doing so without hording supplies during a crises. But currently that is not the case. Sadly, most Americans have less than 3-days-worth of supplies.

Recently I was debating with another disaster preparedness author on the differences between the conditions that existed during the Great Depression (~1929-1940) and the conditions that would envelop a serious disaster situation today.

Breakdown Of Supply-Chain Infrastructure

There are many different possibilities when it comes to the potential causality of large-scale disaster scenarios that are statistically relevant. Some are man-caused, while others may result from the forces of nature, such as global pandemic viruses. Regardless of the causality, there would likely be a complete breakdown of supply-chain infrastructure and society, resulting in large-scale lawless chaos.

When you read some of the survival blogs, papers, books and other speculations on ‘what if the SHTF’, you quickly realize that many people haven’t fully considered the existing environment in which any massive crises will develop. We now have over 340-million Americans living within the United States, and that’s more than double the number during the Great Depression (~127-million). And many more people are armed today compared to the 1930’s; approximately 80% of American households today now have firearms.

Today, our society is living on the top floor of a ‘house of cards’ due to the fact that almost every facet of our daily needs and current level of living, literally our daily survival, is based upon an integrated supply-chain system that is highly leveraged and quite fragile.

That means that everything we depend upon and probably take for granted each and every day, including the simple things like; water, food, fuel, clothing, medicine… almost anything we can think of, depends upon society and its intricate systems operating in perfect harmony. Any major interruption of these systems or the failure of any key element will lead to a catastrophic failure of the entire system due to the inter-dependencies of these symbiotic systems, which due to high-level efficiencies operate on a ‘just-in-time’ basis. This phrase (‘just-in-time‘), which is used by supply-chain managers refers to the fact that, unlike in the past, inventory (food, parts, supplies, fuel, etc.) are no longer inventoried on-site at wholesale and retail locations. Instead, product is essentially distributed directly from producers and manufacturers just as it is needed to supply the retail and wholesale outlets serving consumers. This system allows more money to be made, which is why it is done.

Disaster Communications If The Grid Goes Down

One of several potential catastrophic failures in society would result if we lost a major portion of our national energy grid. The fact that even the U.S. government has been seriously looking at this probability should send a chill up and down your spine, since they are sometimes a day late and a dollar short on important projects, and as of this writing, they haven’t affected any of the corrective measures mandated by the recognized experts in these matters.

Like an 8-cylinder engine that requires all eight cylinders to run properly, we absolutely need and use the full capacity of our current electrical grid as well as many other systems to support our society. In fact, the demand on many current systems (water and electrical) actually exceeds what is available on a regular basis. Of course, assuming everything continues to run optimally, we can to some extent, continue this delicate high-wire act, and scrape-by with one work-around after another.

The United States is essentially already over-populated because we have according to experts exceeded the ‘carrying capacity’ of our own natural resources, where as examples, our soils are being heavily depleted as is our water supply. As a nation, we can no longer live on our own resources alone and we are drawing-down the natural resources from outside the U.S. by way of very large, complex and fragile supply-chains.

We haven’t had a large-scale disaster in the United States that would be remotely comparable to a large-scale grid-down scenario (major or complete loss of the national energy grid). So there are no direct lessons that can be learned from our past history, even for those people who do take lessons from history to heart. There have been some small-scale grid failures, which of course were remedied only because there were nearby areas that were unaffected, from where repairs were initiated.

The combination of our current high population density with a catastrophic failure of any critical supply-chain would lead to social unrest and competitive violence at unprecedented scales. And if such an event affected the continent, who will be coming to the rescue of the United States?  Well, looking back in history, it seems that for the most part, the U.S. has been there for many other countries during times of disasters, as most other countries sat on the sidelines and watched. I think it may be reasonable to posit that we could expect the same in the future. In fact, the enemies of America would want to see any such disaster continue to the point where America is reduced to nothing more than another decimated third-world country.

Even in the best of times, we have witnessed (on YouTube) well-fed people trampling over and injuring each other in order to be first to get a pair of shoes or a game on sale at Wal-Mart! I can easily imagine these same-kind of people killing anyone to get what they needed if they became truly desperate. In my estimation, these will be the real-life ‘Zombies’ in any serious large-scale disaster.

I realize that these postulations paint a dire picture, and it’s not what any of us want to hear or think about; that is unless you are really serious about surviving any such potential events. The U.S. Government is that serious, which is why they have built complete cities in elaborate under-ground bunkers. Survival depends upon a full comprehension and understanding of the potential challenges and risks. Clearly the government has that understanding, however few civilians do, and of those few people, most say we cannot afford such solutions.

But there are effective alternative solutions that are within the financial reach of average people, which I will discuss further into this article.

It’s quite clear that in the event of any large-scale disaster, the short and long-term competition for resources will be fatal to a large percentage of the population as a result of population density, regardless of basic training, bush craft skills, firearms, etc.  If average people adopt the wrong strategy, they will perish.

There Are Basically Two Schools Of Survival:

There are basically two schools of thought with regard to surviving massive large-scale social chaos. Many people who have some level of preparedness (AKA; ‘Preppers’) subscribe to one of these two strategies.

Again, causation is not the issue in these considerations; surviving the aftermath of any continental or global-scale disaster is of the essence. So debating what may trigger such an event is not a fruitful exercise; devising and adopting the proper survival response strategy is a beneficial enterprise.

Strategy One (The Most Common):

Generally speaking: The first, and more common school of survival strategy is to hunker-down where you live, and by using a multitude of survival skills and stocks of supplies and weapons, survive long enough to get a community re-established.

Of course, this plan sounds better than it really is. But as they say here in Oregon, ‘that dog won’t hunt’ in a large-scale event. People who adopt this strategy for whatever reason have failed to properly gauge the impact of the loss of the technological infrastructure combined with the immense numbers of un-prepared survivors (AKA: ‘Zombies’) who due to their own desperation, will swoop-in on the positions of the prepped like the hoards of Genghis Khan in the pursuit of resources.

Some variants of this survival paradigm (‘hunkering down‘) involve planned combat using stores of weapons, sometimes coupled with a ‘Plan B’ involving bugging-out to a secondary location, should the first location become overrun. Of course by and large in a large-scale disaster, this strategy is fatally flawed from its inception, and the fall-back location will likely be overrun as well, even if the Prepper-survivors make it to that position.  ‘Heading for the hills’ when the ‘hills’ are already overrun with a mix of desperate un-prepped survivors and Preppers on the move doesn’t improve anyone’s odds of survival.

In a serious large-scale disaster, there will be incredible numbers of un-prepped, don't be one of them.

The post Large-Scale Disaster: A Sobering Problem – Requiring A Different Approach appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Pharma industry reputation remains steady at a ‘new normal’ after Covid, Harris Poll finds

The pharma industry is hanging on to reputation gains notched during the Covid-19 pandemic. Positive perception of the pharma industry is steady at 45%…

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

The pharma industry is hanging on to reputation gains notched during the Covid-19 pandemic. Positive perception of the pharma industry is steady at 45% of US respondents in 2023, according to the latest Harris Poll data. That’s exactly the same as the previous year.

Pharma’s highest point was in February 2021 — as Covid vaccines began to roll out — with a 62% positive US perception, and helping the industry land at an average 55% positive sentiment at the end of the year in Harris’ 2021 annual assessment of industries. The pharma industry’s reputation hit its most recent low at 32% in 2019, but it had hovered around 30% for more than a decade prior.

Rob Jekielek

“Pharma has sustained a lot of the gains, now basically one and half times higher than pre-Covid,” said Harris Poll managing director Rob Jekielek. “There is a question mark around how sustained it will be, but right now it feels like a new normal.”

The Harris survey spans 11 global markets and covers 13 industries. Pharma perception is even better abroad, with an average 58% of respondents notching favorable sentiments in 2023, just a slight slip from 60% in each of the two previous years.

Pharma’s solid global reputation puts it in the middle of the pack among international industries, ranking higher than government at 37% positive, insurance at 48%, financial services at 51% and health insurance at 52%. Pharma ranks just behind automotive (62%), manufacturing (63%) and consumer products (63%), although it lags behind leading industries like tech at 75% positive in the first spot, followed by grocery at 67%.

The bright spotlight on the pharma industry during Covid vaccine and drug development boosted its reputation, but Jekielek said there’s maybe an argument to be made that pharma is continuing to develop innovative drugs outside that spotlight.

“When you look at pharma reputation during Covid, you have clear sense of a very dynamic industry working very quickly and getting therapies and products to market. If you’re looking at things happening now, you could argue that pharma still probably doesn’t get enough credit for its advances, for example, in oncology treatments,” he said.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

I created a ‘cosy game’ – and learned how they can change players’ lives

Cosy, personal games, as I discovered, can change the lives of the people who make them and those who play them.

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

Cosy games exploded in popularity during the pandemic. Takoyaki Tech/Shutterstock

The COVID pandemic transformed our lives in ways many of us are still experiencing, four years later. One of these changes was the significant uptake in gaming as a hobby, chief among them being “cosy games” like Animal Crossing: New Horizons (2020).

Players sought comfort in these wholesome virtual worlds, many of which allowed them to socialise from the safety of their homes. Cosy games, with their comforting atmospheres, absence of winning or losing, simple gameplay, and often heartwarming storylines provided a perfect entry point for a new hobby. They also offered predictability and certainty at a time when there wasn’t much to go around.

Cosy games are often made by small, independent developers. “Indie games” have long been evangelised as the purest form of game development – something anyone can do, given enough perseverance. This means they can provide an entry point for creators who hadn’t made games before, but were nevertheless interested in it, enabling a new array of diverse voices and stories to be heard.

In May 2020, near the start of the pandemic, the small poetry game A Solitary Spacecraft, which was about its developer’s experience of their first few months in lockdown, was lauded as particularly poignant. Such games showcase a potential angle for effective cosy game development: a personal one.

Personal themes are often explored through cosy games. For instance, Chicory and Venba (both released in 2023) tackle difficult topics like depression and immigration, despite their gorgeous aesthetics. This showcases the diversity of experiences on display within the medium.

However, as the world emerges from the pandemic’s shadow, the games industry is facing significant challenges. Economic downturns and acquisitions have caused large layoffs across the sector.

Historically, restructurings like these, or discontent with working conditions, have led talented laid-off developers to create their own companies and explore indie development. In the wake of the pandemic and the cosy game boom, these developers may have more personal stories to tell.

Making my own cosy game

I developed my own cosy and personal game during the pandemic and quickly discovered that creating these games in a post-lockdown landscape is no mean feat.

What We Take With Us (2023) merges reality and gameplay across various digital formats: a website, a Discord server that housed an online alternate reality game and a physical escape room. I created the game during the pandemic as a way to reflect on my journey through it, told through the videos of game character Ana Kirlitz.

The trailer for my game, What We Take With Us.

Players would follow in Ana’s footsteps by completing a series of ten tasks in their real-world space, all centred on improving wellbeing – something I and many others desperately needed during the pandemic.

But creating What We Take With Us was far from straightforward. There were pandemic hurdles like creating a physical space for an escape room amid social distancing guidelines. And, of course, the emotional difficulties of wrestling with my pandemic journey through the game’s narrative.

The release fared poorly, and the game only garnered a small player base – a problem emblematic of the modern games industry.

These struggles were starkly contrasted by the feedback I received from players who played the game, however.

This is a crucial lesson for indie developers: the creator’s journey and the player’s experience are often worlds apart. Cosy, personal games, as I discovered, can change the lives of those who play them, no matter how few they reach. They can fundamentally change the way we think about games, allow us to reconnect with old friends, or even inspire us to change careers – all real player stories.

Lessons in cosy game development

I learned so much about how cosy game development can be made more sustainable for creators navigating the precarious post-lockdown landscape. This is my advice for other creators.

First, collaboration is key. Even though many cosy or personal games (like Stardew Valley) are made by solo creators, having a team can help share the often emotional load. Making games can be taxing, so practising self-care and establishing team-wide support protocols is crucial. Share your successes and failures with other developers and players. Fostering a supportive community is key to success in the indie game landscape.

Second, remember that your game, however personal, is a product – not a reflection of you or your team. Making this distinction will help you manage expectations and cope with feedback.

Third, while deeply considering your audience may seem antithetical to personal projects, your game will ultimately be played by others. Understanding them will help you make better games.

The pandemic reignited the interest in cosy games, but subsequent industry-wide troubles may change games, and the way we make them, forever. Understanding how we make game creation more sustainable in a post-lockdown, post-layoff world is critical for developers and players alike.

For developers, it’s a reminder that their stories, no matter how harrowing, can still meaningfully connect with people. For players, it’s an invitation to embrace the potential for games to tell such stories, fostering empathy and understanding in a world that greatly needs it.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Adam Jerrett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research announces new advisory board

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in…

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

Credit: Lori Chertoff/The Rockefeller University

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

This international advisory board was created in part to give guidance on how to best use SNFiRU’s resources, as well as bring forward innovative ideas concerning new avenues of research, public education, community engagement, and partnership projects.

SNFiRU was established to strengthen readiness for and response to future health crises, building on the scientific advances and international collaborations forged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Launched with a $75 million grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) as part of its Global Health Initiative (GHI), the institute provides a framework for international scientific collaboration to foster research innovations and turn them into practical health benefits.

SNFiRU’s mission is to better understand the agents that cause infectious disease and to lower barriers to treatment and prevention globally. To speed this work, the institute launched numerous initiatives in its inaugural year. For instance, SNFiRU awarded 31 research projects in 29 different Rockefeller laboratories for over $5 million to help get collaborative new research efforts off the ground. SNFiRU also supports the Rockefeller University Hospital, where clinical studies are conducted, and brought on board its first physician-scientist through Rockefeller’s Clinical Scholars program. “One of the surprises was the scope of interest from Rockefeller scientists in using their talents to tackle important infectious disease problems,” says Charles M. Rice, Maurice R. and Corinne P. Greenberg Professor in Virology at Rockefeller and director of SNFiRU. “The research topics range from the biology of infectious agents to the dynamics of the immune response to pathogens, and also include a number of infectious disease-adjacent studies.”

In the past 12 months, SNFiRU often brought together scientists studying different aspects of infectious disease as a way to spur new collaborations. In addition to hosting its first annual day-long symposium, SNFiRU initiated a Young Scientist Forum for students and post-doctoral fellows to meet regularly, facilitating cross-laboratory thinking. A bimonthly seminar series has also been established on campus.

Another aim of SNFiRU is to develop relationships with community-based organizations, as well as design and participate in community-engaged research, with a focus on low-income and minority communities. To that end, SNFiRU is helping develop a research project on Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic infection prevalent in Latin America that can cause congestive heart failure and gastrointestinal complications if left untreated. The project will bring together clinicians practicing at health centers in New York, Florida, Texas, and California and basic scientists from multiple institutions to help the communities that are most impacted.

“The SNFiRU international advisory board convenes globally recognized leaders with distinguished biomedical expertise, unrivalled experience in pandemic preparedness and response, and a shared commitment to translating scientific advancements into equitably distributed benefits in real-world settings,” says SNF Co-President Andreas Dracopoulos. “The advisory board will advance the institute’s indispensable mission, which SNF is proud to support as a key part of our Global Health Initiative, and we look forward to seeing breakthroughs in the lab drive better outcomes in lives around the globe.”

The new advisory board will hold its first meeting on April 11th, 2024, following the second annual SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research Symposium at Rockefeller.

Its members are: Rafi Ahmed of Emory University School of Medicine, Cori Bargmann of The Rockefeller University, Yasmin Belkaid of the Pasteur Institute, Anthony S. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Esper Kallas of of the Butantan Institute, Sharon Lewin of the University of Melbourne Doherty Institue, Carl Nathan of Weill Cornell Medicine, Rino Rappuoli of Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena and University of Siena, and Herbert “Skip” Virgin of Washington University School of Medicine and UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending