NO LOSS OF LIFE!greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
How many people would die if everything just stopped for three day's? It is hard to believe that people do not have coats, blankets, gloves ect. in their homes. It is hard to believe people could not draw a few gallons of water with as little as 10 minutes notice. I is hard to believe people only have a 3 day supply of medications on hand. It is hard to believe that people have NO food in their homes. It is hard to belive that we actually need to stash cash to survive for three days. It does not take alot to survie for three days! Now please answer this question. Why is so much time, energy, and money being spent by FEMA, The RED CROSS, et.al. to get us to prepare for three stinkin days? I must say nobody needs to do anything for JUST three days. One hour of prep would do it! Scotty
-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 13, 1999
And every so often, my wife leaves the toaster oven on and I detect the smoke from my upstairs office and run downstairs and we put out the flames and carry the poor smoking creature out to the patio and open all the windows in the house for an hour.
Relief. Images of losing everything fade.
Besides, we've got a big back yard. A barn. A tent. We could rough it for awhile, right?
Who needs fire insurance?
-- jor-el (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
It's because the government loves us sooooo much they don't want anyone in this country to suffer even for three days. That is also probably why 300 Billion has already been spent on this minor bump in the road. Its all so that we the people don't have to suffer or be uncomfortable one tiny bit more than we have too. I for one am glad that we have such compassionate leaders that feel our pain. Haven't you realized that they only want to dissarm us so that we don't hurt ourselves with those ugly firearms? Tell us to stop smoking so we will be healthier and deprive the Republicans of all that dirty money that the tobacco industry would otherwise contribute to them? They even allow other countries to have our military secrets in exchange for money just so they can stay in power so that they can go on caring for us. So you see, They must love us very much.
Bill in South Carolina
-- Bill Solorzano (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
And there is no reason why there should ever be a single highway fatality. Everyone behind the wheel has passed a driving test. They all possess the necessary hand-eye-foot coordination to keep their vehicles in the proper lane at a safe speed.
And yet, thousands and thousands die each year.
Why? Cuz sh** happens. Sh** happens even when nothing goes wrong.
And when something does go wrong, bigger sh** happens.
To say that no lives should/will be lost, is profoundly ignorant. And if something goes wrong in a major way, say, a simultaneous, systemic technology failure, then mega-sh** is gonna happen.
When you're dealing with a statistical sample of over a quarter- billion lives (U.S. alone), it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid fatal casualties.
To say that no deaths should/will occur, is profoundly ignorant.
-- rick blaine (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
didn't mean to repeat "profoundly ignorant." I is profoundly ignorant about cut & paste technique sometimes.
-- rick blaine (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
Dunno where you live, but in the northern US, a few people die from the cold every winter. It just doesn't make the headline news cause they're old or poor..
-- y2kbiker (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
Now that I know that I am PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT, let me say something profoundly. The point is, it's more than three days stupid! I am very aware that people die every second of every day! But to say , or even think, that three days over a weekend would cause massive hardship to the majority of Americans, is PROFOUNDLY STUPID! Inconvience yes, hardship no. The government knows damn well this will be more than three days. This is thier way of saying wake up, without starting a panic. The average American could survive for three days without doing much of anything. The government can't say stock up for 6 weeks or 3 months. The government,et.al, is not spending all this money to tell you to stock up for three days. People on some kind of life support would probably die over three days with out it. The government is not talking to those people, they are talking to the general public. Again, it's alot of time and money being spent to warn the G.P. for 3 damn days!
Signed: Profoundly Ignorant
-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 13, 1999.
Scotty, three to five days is apparently the time they think they'll need before they're able to get everyone into shelters. There was a recent WorldNet Daily article about this.
FWIW, three days without power in, say, North Dakota in January, would leave a lot of bodies, regardless of efforts by the government.
-- sparks (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
So right, Scotty. Such a shame that we have gotten so out of touch with the sometimes painful realities of life that we can't or won't take care of ourselves and those who depend on us, but we have.
A while back eastern NC had an up close and personal encounter with a memorable lady named Fran. I was at work on the day the storm was due for landfall, and they turned us loose early and sent us home. Well, there were a couple of minor things I wanted (one more roll of plastic sheeting just-in-case, and some staples for the staple gun) so I steeled myself for the crowd scene and ventured by WallyWorld on the way home. Surprise- no crowd. Parked close to the door, went in, gathered up my stuff plus some other goodies I hadn't planned on since there was no crowd at all to get in the way, and headed for the checkout. It was pretty obvious from what I had what I was getting ready for, and that caused several grins from the folks in line who were buying house plants and window blinds and other such essentials. I just grinned back. About the time I got to the register the manager showed up with a big cardboard box. She asked if she could talk to the cashier before I checked out. She gave the cashier a flashlight, demonstrating that it worked, and said "Keep this where you can get it if the lights go out." Then the manager gave the cashier two large plastic trash bags and said, "If the roof starts leaking put one of these over your cash register and the other over your printer." Then she left.
The house plant and window blind shoppers weren't grinning after that.
-- nobody (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
Three days = don't prepare. Go back to sleep, sleep, sleep.......
-- Bill (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
Scotty- that is a good question. I think the answer has several parts to it. One is the reality that many people in this country literally don't keep much food in the house- their fridge has some ketshup, a beer, leftover salad dressing from a year ago and some wilted lettuce. These folks either eat out or shop on the way home from work for dinner. They're not used to thinking of keeping extra food around. Did you ever see these folks shopping before a blizzard/hurricane? They actually stock up on FROZEN FOOD and chips and stuff- like the thought of the power going out hasn't occurred to them. Even out here in the boonies, lots of folks live like this. A friend down the road a bit( a DWGI), couldn't heat her house, cook, draw waer, etc in a power outage. If she has three cans of soup or beans on hand, that's a lot!
The second part of the answer, I think, is that the gov't doesn't want to "unduly alarm people". If they actually said, get ready for six months folks, they figure panic would occur, bank runs, etc. If they say nothing, the above described types could perish, loot, etc. So, they try to stay with a "happy medium"- and hope for the best. Also- that way they can't be "blamed" for ignoring it completely and not issuing any warnings.It probably also makes people more complacent to be told that it's like preparing for a big storm- since the gov't is acknowledging the problem, they can't be suspected of a total cover-up.
-- anita (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
To see March 1999 news articles about "evacuation"see www.talkusa.com David Bresnahan archives.
-- Etyy Alice (Barn266@aol.com), March 13, 1999.
Yes, but FEMA's reach is numerically limited, I quote from the article cited, below. That number (300,000) doesn't even cover all the old folks and invalids, much less all us Dan'l Boones with our AR-15's...
The plan describes the details of care for up to 300,000 people including registration, feeding, emergency first aid, mail delivery, and all other aspects of care for a minimum of 30 days following the start of the crisis.
-- Blue Himalayan (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
I agree totally, the "three day" thing is just plain stupid. Two weeks of planing would have been better however still not enough in my book. Just for the information, I was at a computer store and this guy was laughing because he had been out at the Air Force base. The Air Force had warned the folks in base housing to have 30 days of food and water and to prepare for at least a 2-week period of no power. This guy thought that the Air Force was over reacting. Tman
-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), March 13, 1999.
At the very least at my house, we never have less than two weeks of food stored away, and it was this way long BEFORE Y2K was even a thought, much less on the radar screen. Now though, we are working on six months of food in a rotating stock. We haven't figured out if some lesser used items will stay good through the rotation though...
Three days preparation is ludicrous. Although some of my single friends don't even have "door food" in their refrigerator, i.e. ketchup, mayo, mustard... They eat out exclusively. These are the DGI's that will either die, or turn into the "horde" if the Y2K speed bump is the size of MT. Rainier...;)
I heard the Red Cross is upping the prep level they suggest to 30 days. What will this info do to the DGI's? Not much... (mooooo...) They won't do anything until Tom Brokaw or Geraldo Rivera scream that it is too late. I forsee some drastic panic right after Thanksgiving...
These DWGI's are the ones that piss me off... They will be in for a rude awakening if they approach my household in 2000 looking for food. (I will speak briefly to people about 2000 and if they are rabid DWGI's, I avoid them. Because they WILL remember who spoke to them about it and they WILL search you out.) They will be met with the .45 loaded, and in my hand, because I WILL remember them...
The government WILL have more blood on their hands after 01/01/00..
-- Dog (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
I expect that attributing deaths to y2k problems will necessarily be a statistical process. Start with the (seasonally-adjusted) normal death rate and the variation in that rate year to year. This will likely produce a bell curve. Then count the deaths during the first X days of 2000 (whatever time period seems suitable). If that number falls way past the end of the curve, we can safely say y2k was responsible for an abnormal death rate. If the count falls somewhere *on* the curve (meaning we've had that many deaths in the past for that season and time period), we need a *lot* more data to determine to what degree y2k contributed to that particular rate.
In any case, the result must be expressed in terms of probabilities. We end up with a statement that there's an X% probability that y2k contributed to an additional Y deaths, with an error range of plus or minus Z%.
-- Flint (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
For the second time this week, I must say, I'm sorry. I will never use satire again on this forum. Guy's, all I was trying to say was, there is no way that everyone would push a three day isssue to the general public. Eat ketchup, suck dew off of a plant, the general public will not die from this in only three days. We are being given a mindset here. Three days has nothing to do with it!
-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 13, 1999.
We've tried talking to DWGI's, and they all claim to eat and drink like birds...they "don't have time" to prepare for anything further ahead than tomorrow's dinner. They don't seem to have any facts on which to base their opinions. They just "believe" y2k won't be so bad. When we give them the number of gallons of drinking water their families need to have stored for just 3 days or even 30 days, they don't believe the amounts. We show them Red Cross guidelines that back up our numbers, and they still don't "believe".
If the officials put out a warning for any number of days preparation, we're of the opinion that DWGI's will ignore it.
-- Helen (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
"I heard the Red Cross is upping the prep level they suggest to 30 days."
Where did you hear this?
I think most people understood the satire, and your point was well made.
-- Wanda (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 1999.
Scotty, before using that rapier wit, you may want to consider inserting at the beginning:
::::Sarcasm mode activated...:::
Or something to that effect.
-- Tim (email@example.com), March 13, 1999.
I hope Puddintane doesn't mind me stealing this from one of her earlier posts:
"It's taken me three months, but I finally get it! OK, stick with me here. Alaska is in the US. The Brooks Range of mountains is in northern Alaska. At some point in the winter, the sun goes down and doesn't come back up for about a month or two. THAT'S ONE DAY! During that time it's completely dark and about 50 below zero. There is no electricity and no grocery store. No telephone. Transportation mostly by sled dog. If you don't have your three month or so supply of food and fuel, then you become part of the permafrost.
Hey! I'm going to be prepared for three days . . . in the Brooks Range in January! Thank you Bill Clinton for teaching me how to think and how to decipher "truthful" advice from our honest, informed and concerned politicians. aka candya** closet survivalists"
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 1999.
Prepare for three days, prepare like it's a hurricane...
I was just reading (another!) article on the big icestorm of 1998. After three days of storm, things were already bad enough that it would have taken weeks to return to normal. So perhaps the three days they are referring to are the three storm days, and you'll really need weeks of stuff? That's the only way that these warnings make ANY sense - who couldn't live off their own fat for three days? Not many in our society. On the other hand, maybe it's true that this is all just anti-prep spin. Most will hear "3 days" and quit worrying. Even 3 days here (and in US mid-west) is enough to kill without adequate heat, and will damage houses through pipes bursting, but most people don't think of that. US govt is certainly giving conflicting signals. We seem to hear less, but what we hear is less conflicting here. RCMP, armed forces, city police and firemen all over the country have been informed that no vacation will be granted from mid-December 1999 'til March, 2000. (And more quietly, the telco's; my husband told me tonight that although he can still take time off, he is required to "stay available [ie, local]" from mid-Dec until after Feb 29.) Sounds like more than "3 days" to me!
-- Tricia the Canuck (email@example.com), March 14, 1999.
You People just don't get it ! (except maybe Dog) That 3 day bit is not for YOU. It's for the 80% of the population who depend on McDonald's,Burger King, KFC, Hardees, Taco Bell, and ready made sandwiches at the local convenience store, and numerous other restauraunts. 3 days food which they probably have no idea how to cook unless its chips and beer, will probably last them a month.Maybe longer if they don't learn how to cook it !
-- sue (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 1999.
In a y2k meeting in Michigan, Franklin Frith (y2k consultant hired by Michigan), asked Lt. Tom Mattioli (emergency management coordinator for the Michigan State Police), if it was expected that Y2K disruptions would only last a few days. Mattioli's answered:
"The three-to-five-day period for preparations is not the expected down time for essential services, rather it is the expected response time for emergency response personnel to arrive and evacuate people to shelters,"
Link to the article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990304_xex_government_p.shtml
-- Fran (email@example.com), March 14, 1999.