GAO: Avoiding A Net Loss During A Pandemic

 

(UPDATED)

 

# 3898

 

This is something my good buddy, and fellow blogger, Scott McPherson has written about several times:

 

Whether the Internet will handle the load if millions of people are stuck at home during a pandemic.

Scott is the CIO of the Florida House of Representatives, and eminently qualified to opine on this issue.  But more on that in a bit. 

 

First, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has just published a study, entitled:

 

Influenza Pandemic: Key Securities Market Participants Are Making Progress, but Agencies Could Do More to Address Potential Internet Congestion and Encourage Readiness

GAO-10-8 October 26, 2009

Highlights Page (PDF)  

Full Report (PDF, 77 pages)   

Recommendations (HTML)

 

 

I’ve reproduced excerpts from the summary below.  

 

Summary

Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009's could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers' network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic.

 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic's impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations' pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) oversight of these efforts. GAO reviewed relevant studies, regulatory guidance and examinations, interviewed telecommunications providers and financial market participants, and analyzed pandemic plans for seven critical market organizations.

 

Increased demand during a severe pandemic could exceed the capacities of Internet providers' access networks for residential users and interfere with teleworkers in the securities market and other sectors, according to a DHS study and providers.

 

(Continue . . . )

 

For those wishing a 1 page summary, download the Highlights Page (PDF).

 

 

For those who want to learn more, but are not masochistic enough to try to wade through 77 pages of a GAO report, you might consider reading Scott McPherson’s excellent 5-Part series on why Telecommuting Will Probably Fail In A Pandemic.

 

Why telecommuting will probably fail in a pandemic, Vol. 1

Why telecommuting will probably fail in a pandemic, Vol. 2

The ampersand that ate San Francisco; or, Why telecommuting will probably fail during a pandemic, Vol. 3

Why telecommuting will probably fail in a pandemic, Vol. 4

Why telecommuting will probably fail in a pandemic, Vol. 5

 

UPDATE:  No sooner did I post this blog when I discovered that Scott has written Vol. 6 to this series.  I fear the only way to stop him will be for his predictions about the net to come to pass.  

 

But I digress . . . read it while you can:

 

Why telecommuting will probably fail in a pandemic, Vol. 6: the GAO weighs in

»» Read More

Reckless Disregard

 

 

# 3888

 

 

I received an email today from a teacher who tutors children in her home.  She states that she has asked parents not to drop off their kids for lessons if they have `flu-like’ symptoms, yet parents continue to do so – exposing her and other students to their virus.

 

Her concern is exacerbated by the fact that she has asthma, a pre-existing condition that increases her risk of having complications if she catches any flu virus.   Additionally other students she teaches have asthma, or other conditions, that make it important to avoid respiratory infections if possible.

 

Until an H1N1 vaccine becomes widely available, avoidance of exposure is really their only protection.

 

And so she is understandably upset that parents are disregarding her pleas not to drop Johnny off for a 90 minute lesson while they are still hacking and coughing like an escapee from a TB ward.

 

If you are healthy and have no co-morbidities, then all of this may seem like an over-reaction.  H1N1 is, for most people,  no worse than seasonal flu.  Your odds of ending up in the hospital from this flu are probably less than 1 in 1,000.   

 

But if you have asthma, or are pregnant, or have diabetes . . . the threat goes up appreciably. 

 

The emailer was particularly outraged today by an article in the Washington Post, which she felt unfairly maligned those trying to avoid infection. 

 

Families say flu scare comes with a dose of craziness

By Donna St. George

Sunday, October 25, 2009

(EXCERPT)

Strong reactions

With worst-case flu stories dominating the public imagination, the fear of contagiousness has created new expectations about exactly what qualifies as being sick.

 

Rafe Petersen said his preschool e-mail group list in Chevy Chase lit up at the news that a parent had dropped off a child who appeared slightly sick but who the parent did not think was truly ill.

 

"People went nuts," said Petersen, 39, a father of three. "The reaction was, 'How dare you!' "

 

This sort of upset would not have happened last year, Petersen said. But as families try to sort out the confusing risks of swine flu, "I think people are on edge, and I think there's a little paranoia and a little hysteria."

(Continue . . .)

 

The author of this story and the editor probably thought of this as a `lightweight’, harmless Sunday supplement human interest type story. This is typical `man-on-the-street’ interview fare, which increasingly substitutes for `news’ these days. 

 

Although both sides of the issue are included, those who are most concerned about contracting the virus are negatively labeled (by those being interviewed) with terms like `nutty’, `paranoid’, or slightly `crazy’.  

 

The overriding message it delivers is one that trivializes the H1N1 pandemic and marginalizes those who are concerned.

 

Now . . . are there people who are overly concerned or are just a little bit crazy over this virus?

You bet.

But it isn’t crazy to expect parents to keep their kids home even if they are only `slightly sick’, or to expect your co-worker to stay home if they are ill.    I don’t care how inconvenient it might be.  

 

Doing anything less is a reckless disregard for the health and safety of others.  It literally endangers lives. 

 

And frankly, it’s time for society to say so.   We need to disapprove of the avoidable spreading of illness the way we disapprove of drunk driving. 

 

And not just during this pandemic.

 

The comments to this story (which, alas, are fairly typical of what you see these days) show how poorly informed, or ambivalent, a lot of people are about this virus. 

 

To many it is either a joke, a non-event, or a plot by ________  (fill in the blank) to take over the country or enslave the world. 

 

Which illustrates just how much work, and public education, needs to be done.  

 

      *     *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * 

 

 

Earlier this month, on Twitter, this `tweet’ came across my desktop from @Caroldn.

 

It was so good, I immediately re-tweeted it. 

 

If you get sick, pledge to yourself: "This germ stops with me" Don't pass it forward.

 

A simple enough message.

 

Yet - if we all followed this advice -  we could substantially reduce the impact of this pandemic virus practically overnight.

 

Take the pledge.

»» Read More

The Flaw In The Ointment

 

 

# 3769

 

 

The CDC today released some `Action Steps’ for parents to take to help protect their families from the flu this school year.  It is basically a rehash of the same advice we’ve been hearing all along, but expressed in a simple `bullet’ format.  

 

First, an excerpt from this guidance . . . then some comments on why this advice may be resonating with the public less well than the CDC might hope.

 

 

Action Steps for Parents to Protect Your Child and Family from the Flu this School Year

September 25, 9:30 AM ET

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 4 main ways you and your family may keep from getting sick with the flu at school and at home:

1. Practice good hand hygiene by washing your hands often with soap and water, especially after coughing or sneezing. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are also effective.

2. Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.  If you don’t have a tissue, cough or sneeze into your elbow or shoulder; not into your hands.

3. Stay home if you or your child is sick for at least 24 hours after there is no longer a fever or signs of a fever (without the use of fever-reducing medicine). Keeping sick students at home means that they keep their viruses to themselves rather than sharing them with others.

4. Get your family vaccinated for seasonal flu and 2009 H1N1 flu when vaccines are available.

 (Continue. . .)

 

 

From the outset, let me say that I don’t have a miracle salve for this pandemic anymore than the CDC does, and I believe the above advice – given the circumstances – to be simple, pragmatic, and for the most part reasonable.

 

But . . . when you look at this advice critically, items #2 and #3 have very little to do with protecting your kids or yourself from the flu.

 

If you are already coughing and sneezing, or are staying home with the flu-like-symptoms – you’ve probably already got the virus. 

 

They are important steps to protect others, of course.

 

Getting vaccinated (item #4) is great advice, but the H1N1 vaccine isn’t available yet . . .and even when it begins to flow in October, it may be weeks or longer before you or your kids can get it. 

 

Which leaves #1 – washing your hands – as the only proactive step suggested by the CDC that you and your kids can take TODAY to help protect against getting the novel H1N1 flu.

 

 

Washing our hands is an important hygienic step, one that I wholeheartedly approve of (and want to encourage).  And it certainly has been shown to reduce the risks of some illnesses and diseases.

 

But there is precious little scientific evidence to support the notion that washing our hands will protect us against influenza.

 

It it helps at all, it probably doesn’t help much.

 

So even bullet point #1 – the mainstay of the CDC’s prevention campaign – may have little real protective value for the individual against this pandemic virus.

 

I do understand the dilemma that the CDC finds themselves in, and I sympathize with their plight. They desperately want to give people something they can do, something to empower them against this pandemic.

 

The reality is, there is precious little that people can do to protect themselves against this virus until they can get vaccinated. 

 

No one wants to come out and say that, of course.

 

So we get advice that, while it may not protect us much as individuals, gives us something we can do (wash our hands) and should at least help limit the spread of the virus in the community by urging us to cover our coughs and sneezes, and to stay home when sick.

 

And I’m not suggesting that any of these are bad things. 

 

The danger I see is that by packaging this advice as preventatives against this virus, public health risks losing some credibility when they don’t work particularly well.

 

Most people I’ve talked to are keenly aware how `thin’ this advice really is, and some have privately expressed a growing frustration with the message.  They feel as if the government is `talking down to the public’, and they are beginning to resent it.

 

Perhaps it’s time to shift our emphasis onto how we protect our community (including other household members) in the event we become infected, instead of obsessively trying to prevent our own illness.

 

We turn this around, and make it about being responsible members of society.  Doing the `right thing’ when we are ill, and protecting others.

 

 

The advice doesn’t really change, only the way we frame it. 

 

Hand washing, covering our coughs, staying home if sick, and getting vaccinated are all good community mitigation steps that should help limit the spread of the virus.

 

It may not be quite as reassuring to some people as the current campaign, but it has the singular virtue of being the unvarnished truth.

 

And that is always easier to defend.

»» Read More