Good film by Steven Soderbergh. Saw it tonight with my brother.

 

I find viral/bacterial outbreaks to be quite scary seeing as there is little one may do to defend against it. Doesn't really matter how much food you have stocked, and how much ammo/guns you got... run into one of the vectors, and your just as dead.

 

This film also shows what happens as social order deteriorates, and how it moves at an exponential pace. One day people are crowding supermarkets/pharmacies, the next they're rioting. All it takes is for supplies to get scarce, and nerves pushed to the breaking point.

 

Anyone else see it?

As the catch title says, "Nothing spreads like fear"

 

I liked the film. Most of the criticism is people nitpicking certain details, but I think the larger picture is very well done. What I got out of the film wasn't even fear of any type, but the idea that I should stop putting things aside because I'm so driven and focused towards other goals. I definitely recommend this film.

I saw it today as well. I thought it was pretty good, although I couldn't help shake the feeling that it was only a step or two above a made for tv movie. That aside, it was a solid story - nothing earth shattering for people that have previously given the subject matter any thought, but still solid.

 

But, the best thing I got out of it was when my wife said "maybe it's not such a bad idea to have a few guns at home in case anything like that ever really happens". That alone was worth the (IMAX) ticket price.

I really want to see it but I can't find it. Maybe in a few more days.

I did a paper on this for my masters degree. The paper focused more on risk management and how a trucking company would get goods to market in the event of a transportation interruption.

 

Most stores only have about 1.5 to 3 days of goods on hand to sell. Just In Time (JIT) inventory has lured us into a very complacent way of thinking. Food is always on the shelves, and companies have algorithms that predict what is needed and where it has to go.

 

I actually took a look at my pantry and I listed everything that was nonperishable. I need 2500 calories per day. My wife needs 2200. My kids need 1500 and 1700 per day, respectively. This totals to 7900 calories per day. I had a total of 14 days of food in my pantry, and this was after my wife went shopping. And I am counting things like tortilla shells, pretzels and so on. How would you like pretzels for dinner every night?

 

I think most people simply cannot fathom that the whole JIT inventory system would suddenly stop since it is such an ingrained part of our lives. The sun comes up every morning, the stars come out every night. Pop Tarts are always at the supermarket... until one day they aren't. I could easily see rioting because you would be jerking people out of a very comfortable reality. People would just explode. Pop Tarts used to be there every time I went to the supermarket. Now they are not. Why isn't the government doing something about this???!!!

 

I also think that you can only prepare for so much. You may have 30 days of food on hand, but what if the interruption lasts for 60 days... or 90? What about water?

 

I think there are a lot of people who fancy themselves getting their .22's and living off the land. And that is fine, although you have to keep in mind that everybody else who has a .22 is thinking the same thing as you. How long will the wild game last? How long will you last when you and somebody else is shooting at the same rabbit?

 

I think the scary reality is that no matter how well we prepare, we all may be out of luck in the case of a big disaster. The prepared may just last a little longer. That's the true frightening reality.

 

I will be more than happy to post the Excel so you can do the math in your own home, but I think I need an administrator to upload it for me.

Very interesting, I wouldn't mind seeing the Excel worksheet if you don't mind. I'm seriously considering pursuing an early career in risk management/OEM as I find it quite pertinent in this day and age (and interesting).

 

Question posed though, how about self-sustainability? Would the biggest risk then shift to a different paradigm, such as INFOSEC & OPSEC (in that instead of worrying about essential/non-essential goods, a group is concerned with not broadcasting it)? I think self-sustainability is quite possible, even in a major city (given the size of their group... individual, family, etc).

To be specific though, my area is built on former farmland (as is a very high number of NJ residents), so the soil had been taken care of for decades (possibly centuries before, thanks to the Natives). We can grow pretty much anything seasonally, plus we have the space. However, as I can foresee, the problem is that while certain areas might have a relatively low population density, they are oft surrounded by major urban sprawl-- and, I could imagine, that in a major emergency situation, there could be run-off. Obviously agriculture is something that cannot really be easily hidden from view, plus who knows how the townspeople across the street (let alone from the major city 20-25 miles away) feel.

 

I know, it's a complicated question with a whole set of new parameters from what you had mentioned, mcbethr. I read what you had to say, and it resonated with me because I've really made an effort to stop using "supermarkets" and instead have been focused on self-sustainability and local farmer's markets. And while I do think going back to those two would solve a lot of problems in this country (economical/institutionally and health-wise), I do understand the threats that would rise would greatly differ from that of things related to supermarkets (like the JIT concept). Was just curious what you thought.

 

I also think that you can only prepare for so much. You may have 30 days of food on hand, but what if the interruption lasts for 60 days... or 90? What about water?

 

I think there are a lot of people who fancy themselves getting their .22's and living off the land. And that is fine, although you have to keep in mind that everybody else who has a .22 is thinking the same thing as you. How long will the wild game last? How long will you last when you and somebody else is shooting at the same rabbit?

 

I think the scary reality is that no matter how well we prepare, we all may be out of luck in the case of a big disaster. The prepared may just last a little longer. That's the true frightening reality.

 

I've been saying this all along. During Irene, I heard the slogan "The first 72 is on you" repeated by the news readers. This is a start. It should really be about two weeks. I personally can weather more than that, but at some point, how much is enough? If after 30 days, society isn't returning to normalcy, the game is over, the jig is up. There will be phases of die-offs and I believe 30 days is where the first one will start. This will include people on regular medicines like Insulin and others who are infirm.

 

The fact is, our country cannot regress to an 1800s style of agrarian living. There are too many people and too much just in time. You have to be willing to go where the food is and you will run into resistance along the way. It's sad to say that a FEMA internment camp might be preferable to the alternative.

I know, it's a complicated question with a whole set of new parameters from what you had mentioned, mcbethr. I read what you had to say, and it resonated with me because I've really made an effort to stop using "supermarkets" and instead have been focused on self-sustainability and local farmer's markets. And while I do think going back to those two would solve a lot of problems in this country (economical/institutionally and health-wise), I do understand the threats that would rise would greatly differ from that of things related to supermarkets (like the JIT concept). Was just curious what you thought.

 

 

PM me your email and I will send you the spreadsheet.

 

I'll answer your question, but I'm at work and need to get some stuff done first.

Very interesting, I wouldn't mind seeing the Excel worksheet if you don't mind. I'm seriously considering pursuing an early career in risk management/OEM as I find it quite pertinent in this day and age (and interesting).

 

Question posed though, how about self-sustainability? Would the biggest risk then shift to a different paradigm, such as INFOSEC & OPSEC (in that instead of worrying about essential/non-essential goods, a group is concerned with not broadcasting it)? I think self-sustainability is quite possible, even in a major city (given the size of their group... individual, family, etc).

To be specific though, my area is built on former farmland (as is a very high number of NJ residents), so the soil had been taken care of for decades (possibly centuries before, thanks to the Natives). We can grow pretty much anything seasonally, plus we have the space. However, as I can foresee, the problem is that while certain areas might have a relatively low population density, they are oft surrounded by major urban sprawl-- and, I could imagine, that in a major emergency situation, there could be run-off. Obviously agriculture is something that cannot really be easily hidden from view, plus who knows how the townspeople across the street (let alone from the major city 20-25 miles away) feel.

 

I know, it's a complicated question with a whole set of new parameters from what you had mentioned, mcbethr. I read what you had to say, and it resonated with me because I've really made an effort to stop using "supermarkets" and instead have been focused on self-sustainability and local farmer's markets. And while I do think going back to those two would solve a lot of problems in this country (economical/institutionally and health-wise), I do understand the threats that would rise would greatly differ from that of things related to supermarkets (like the JIT concept). Was just curious what you thought.

 

Well, if you're gonna be self-sufficient, you best start now, and learn how to store food. In NJ, the growing season is between what? Late April-Early October for most foods? You may squeeze 1-2 months out of that depending on the type of winter we get. If it's a long winter (early frosts in October, with snows and cold weather going until March), you're not gonna be growing much for awhile.

 

For me though, I was thinking of investing in a small indoor hydroponics operation. The hippies perfected it to grow illicit plants indoors, why can't it be re-purposed for more legitimate uses. It may not work as a primary food source, but it can be a supplemental one to canned and dry food supplies, especially if one wants to avoid things like scurvy. The other issue being electricity: without that you can't really do indoor hydroponics.

 

But seeing as NJ get's a lot of power from nuclear plants (50% in-state alone), and barring any major storm damage/flooding, having electricity throughout some scenarios isn't really out of the question.

here are some good information/starting point

 

http://www.abysmal.com/LDS/Preparedness/Preparedness.pdf

Very interesting discussion. For me, preparedness means making reasonable preparations to survive a catastrophe that causes relatively short term disruptions. For example, a severe hurricane a la Katrina or an earthquake that impacts us locally or regionally but leaves our national infrastructure intact and the government functioning. Or rioting or social unrest caused, for example, by a political assasination or other event, a la Rodney King and the LA riots. In such an event, supply lines will eventually be reopened and order will be restored, and it makes sense (to me) to have food, water, medical supplies, and the means to protect myself and my family on hand to weather the storm. I'm talking about a week to a month roughly.

 

Beyond that, if we're talking about major and long lasting socio economic breakdown -- a widespread epidemic, nuclear war, etc. -- I don't realistically think there is much I can do to prepare. I live in suburbia and can't buy a farm, and even if I could I'd have no way to protect it and wouldn't know how to run it. What is important but I think sometimes overlooked is to have a social network -- a group of reliable friends and family -- who can congregate and act together in mutual support. One or two armed people against a mob, especially week after week, won't stand a chance. A group of 10 or 20 families that band together, pool resources (one person may have medical training, one person may be mechanically adept, some people may own firearms, etc) stand a much, much better chance of surviving. I have discussed this with friends in my neighborhood and have actually thought about formalizing it a bit -- reaching some informal agreement in advance about how we would gather, how we would allocate responsibilities, how we would defend our neighborhood, if the SHTF.

I know, it's a complicated question with a whole set of new parameters from what you had mentioned, mcbethr. I read what you had to say, and it resonated with me because I've really made an effort to stop using "supermarkets" and instead have been focused on self-sustainability and local farmer's markets. And while I do think going back to those two would solve a lot of problems in this country (economical/institutionally and health-wise), I do understand the threats that would rise would greatly differ from that of things related to supermarkets (like the JIT concept). Was just curious what you thought.

 

Ok, longer response to your question.

 

Most people think that the world currency is the dollar. But it isn't... it's the calorie. You can't eat dollar bills.

 

Take a look at this graph:

 

The population of the world was under 500 billion for past 1800 years. Then, suddenly BAM! Growth is logarithmic. Why?

 

Coal first, then oil. Fossil fuels allowed us to move grain at unprecedented speed. Grain is what has kept humanity alive for centuries. The only problem was that you had to get it from point A to point B quickly and efficiently. Cities were limited in size for thousands of years based on the capacity of the surrounding countryside. Armies were limited in size based on their forage capacity - the idea of global war would have been laughable before 1800 (and before canning).

 

But then, once we could move grain quickly and efficiently (we could grow it in X and ship it to Y), we could afford to have legions of people stop farming and start making buggy whips, and Frigidaires and iPads. They didn't need to take time off to farm. The farm would come to them. Armies didn't need to stop to forage.

 

Industrial agriculture changed things as well. This current population of 6.7 billion people is basically dependent on two resources: corn and oil. And those two resources go hand in hand. We use oil to harvest the corn, and then we dump the corn back in the oil to put into our cars and drive to the supermarket where we buy... stuff made from corn! Sodas, beer, gum, grits, potato chips, soap and even wallboard. All made from corn.

 

You want a scary scenario? Write a movie about a disease that strikes corn.

 

Could we go back to an organic-based economy? I doubt it. I don't think we could feed everybody that way and still have the American way of life we want. Organic farming is pretty labor intensive. Now you need people to hand-pull weeds and you need a lot more land to feed the same amount of people without genetically engineered crops and gallons of oil for farm machinery.

 

But wait, you say, we could just use ethanol!

 

It takes 26 pounds of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. 13,562,662 corn calories are in that gallon. That means you could have fed 5,425 men from the ethanol needed to drive your John Deere tractor 13 miles. Is that sustainable?

 

I think that its theoretically possible to be sustainable through a small supply interruption. If you plan things right, you can last 2 weeks, or 30 days or even 90 days. But I think anything longer than that, and we are in big, big trouble. Heck, we are in big trouble already, and the population is still going up.

 

I think a "Contagion" scenario is more like one of those "Beyond Rule of Law" type scenarios. It's survivable if you plan, although if you survive I think the world will be a much different, darker, harder place.

Ideally, you prepare for the most devastating, highly likely scenario which presents the least amount of warning time.

 

In California, this would be earthquakes and wildfires. Things which can develop over a matter of seconds/days before you can adequately prepare.

In NJ, our major threats are weather related. The biggest is blizzards/large amounts of snowfall (depending on your location in the state). The one following this is Hurricanes (which appears to affect everyone in NJ). Both give warning times measured in days (to elaborate: we only had 5-8 days warning on Irene as a possibility of hitting NJ).

 

Civil unrest actually takes a lot of time to build, but it's really hard to gauge the break point when it boils over. Usually, a major event (man-made/natural) precipitates civil unrest. Therefor, it's best to consider it as symptom, not a cause of a collapse. Ex: in the movie, police/fire had low reporting rates (due to personnel dying or staying home to care for family), and this led to increased civil unrest.

 

Viral/bacterial outbreaks are obscenely difficult to prepare for... outside of keeping masks on hand, wearing gloves, storing disinfectant, and some lightweight anti-bios and otc medicines.

 

Asteroid impacts, Yellowstone events... don't bother. Those are ELEs.