Subject:	Panic Is Inevitable
Date:	1999/10/09
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

Many Local Communities Still Need to Wake up to Y2K   By Rick Reeder October 8, 1999   Forest Sawyer asked a question of John Koskinen on ABC's NIGHTLINE on October 21, 1998 concerning where the real Y2K problems and dislocations are expected to hit. Mr. Koskinen, said, "In this country, in a lot of smaller or medium size cities and counties."   A recent survey seems to confirm this in that millions of small businesses and many municipalities are just now waking up to the need to address Y2K. The National Association of Counties reveals that one-half of the counties in the U.S. have not begun to fix their computer systems.   Earlier this year, an article appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that confirmed the city government has all but conceded that they will not be ready in time. The 140-person Y2K team quit, over disputes relating to their work. The city will not focus on such things as their 3000 desktop computers, but are now concerned primarily with keeping the necessities of life available to the residents. The walkout has put them months behind where they were in their efforts.   Of the situation in Atlanta, Michael Flores, chief executive of Bretton Woods, Inc., (a consulting firm that advises public and private organizations on Y2K) said, "You've got to take a holistic approach to this thing." He warned the city of the danger of failing to bring the desktop PC's into compliance. He claimed that it could have a cascading effect throughout the system impacting critical services such as fire and police protection, phone and payroll systems, water and sewage, just to name a few.   Steve Steinbrecken, Chief Information Officer of Contra Costra County, CA points out that local officials are reluctant to come out with definite statements about the level of preparation the public should take. This failure to act or reluctance to help people work through these issues will only disable them from prudent and rational preparation now. The outcome of waiting may only serve to escalate the panic that is sure to come among many reticent inactive segments of the population as the century comes to a close.     =================     80 or so days to go.  ONE HALF HAVE ***NOT YET BEGUN*** to fix their systems.   Of course, pollyannas will 'content' themselves to think that most of these places have minimal IT needs at all. So it is no big deal at all. They are like alligators rubbing their own bellies drifting off to sleep. It is NOt just smaller places. It is a multitude of big ones too.   The City of Atlanta is toast. It is NOT the only big city in this predicament.   People are going to panic. And the one thing that will have caused MORE panic than ANYTHING else will have been the various government's failures to warn people to make serious preparations. Not this joke of a three day snowstorm crapola.       http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/CP/Organizational/reed9940.htm   -- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- a (a@a.a), October 10, 1999

Answers

You wasted bandwidth to repost that?

-- Can't Believe It (waste@of.time), October 10, 1999.

So the spokesman from Contra Costa County says that they are "reluctant to come out with definte statements about their level of preparations." My sister lives in Contra Costa County, 1 mile from a jail (she can see it from her house), and 5 miles from a major jail. She's prepared and scared but refuses to leave for safer grounds.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 10, 1999.

"Y2K: What You Should Know" Disaster Preparedness Brochure Frequently Asked Questions

Our recommendations are to have supplies to last at least three days to a week. Most reasonable people would not consider such quantities of supplies as a "stockpile" or "hoarding." We understand that there are some other groups or organizations that are suggesting storing larger quantities of supplies for various reasons. We will stick with our recommendations, because experience with hundreds of disasters over many, many years has indicated that the vast majority of people in the U.S. can get to one of our shelters for caring comfort or receive other assistance in a matter of a few days after even the most severe event. 

Caring comfort will be provided for the 180,000 residents of my county at 20-30 shelters, the location of which will be announced at the end of the year.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Can't Believe It

You moron. You would have complained about folks concerned about Japanese carriers NW of Pearl Harbor.

Don't worry about Atlanta. No big deal.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 10, 1999.

Oh great, thanks Dog Gone. I am in awe of your verbal sparring skills. I lose. I admit defeat.

-- Can't Believe It (why@post.this?), October 10, 1999.

Apparently Milne reserves the right both to define panic, and to use hindsight to decide when it happened. Atlanta is such a mess now that the influence of 'panic' will pobably be subtle.

But not to worry. 'a' will tell us what happened just as soon as Milne tells 'a' what to think.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

My...Mr Flint

The vinager in your post toasties mush have been racid this morning. Or is it you lost a biting contest with a rabid dog?

In either case, I see you are in your usual acid acid uninformed form. And as usual, you have nothing to say, just sour grunts which could as well issue from a Parrot's mouth for all the intelligence they impart to the readers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), October 10, 1999.

Shakey:

Rather than shower me with compliments, why don't *you* define how we'll recognize panic, and give a date by which it will happen? What public behaviors do you consider panicky, and when will we see them? Lacking any qualification criteria, we cannot know if we've met them. Care to give it a shot?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Rather than shower me with compliments, why don't *you* define how we'll recognize panic, and give a date by which it will happen? "

A GREAT example of a Polly gasping for it's LAST breath of air !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint & Can't Believe It...

You guys make me laugh.

Does the back of your head hurt right now?

Your suppose to lift the lid and hold the seat up with your paw while you get a drink.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 10, 1999.

Ray and no thinking please:

I take it your answer is NO, you can't do it either? Why not admit it. When someone asks you a question you can't answer, do you always call your questioner an idiot rather than admit you don't know? How did you ever get through school (assuming you did)?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Poor dumb CantBelieveIt must be y2k pro using another name. I see similarities in the factless postings. WHAT a critique, CantBelieveIt. Do you know what FACTS are, CantBelieveIt? If not, you should learn because nobody gives a crap about your opinions.

-- b (b@b.com), October 10, 1999.

My Dear Mr. Flint Sir you have impressed me by your civility and an honest question.I will try answear your question to me.

The question of when panic wil start, is not one of time. Bu of an event or series of events which willl set Jhn Q. Citizen off. By postulating that Y2K is or can be a trigger for other events. You will come closer to determining the fear factor's collective reactions amoung the general populace.

I think that even the Pollies would agree that ours is the most hated nation of the face of the earth. I fear/believe that Y2K, no matter how destructive it will be, and it will be destructive. Make no mistake about that! That the advent of Y2K, will also signal to the lawless of the world that they CAN hit at the population of the US with impunity.

When such an event actually occurs, You will have your panic. And Y2K will only retard any attempts to put "Humpty Dumpty" back togeather again. But when it does go back togeather...And it will. It will be years down the road, and untold millions of Americans will not be there to answear a census taker's questions.

The industrial infrastructure will be so fractured and damaged, that we wll have to re-start much of it from scratch.

It is the severe, but predictable reaction from people which will be and are the most deadly (and most predictable) respondses we all of us, both Doomer and Pollie alike will have to face.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), October 10, 1999.

<<<<>>>>

Panic is "a sudden unreasoning terror often accompanied by mass flight".

How does one predict the timing of a flash fire or in this case the point at which millions of people suddenly understand that things are not what they have thought and "sudden unreasoning terror" takes over?

Even if there were only minor problems due to Y2K the fact is that most people being uninformed will asume the worse and panic is almost certain to be the results. Small problems will become magnified. By definition the decision to panic is always an emotional response and never a reasoned response.

In my mind the question is not if there will be panic, it is if the almost certain localized panic will erupt into a nationwide and then a world wide panic. Local panic is manageable, panic on a national or worldwide scale is a different matter entirely.

I live in Atlanta. The local government here is a laughing stock as far as Y2K remediation goes.

Atlanta is also a socially divided powerkeg of a city that is just looking for a light for it's fuse. I think it is quite likely that Y2K will be that flame. I find myself feeling very uncofortable living here anymore.

I am an electro/mechanical engineer. I am trained to subjectively analaze problems. I am not prone to being naive no to being weak willed. I am not a "follower". People who would suggest that I am "following" anyone clearly do not know me. It is my responsibility to determine my risk and I think Y2K has the POTENTIAL to be very severe. I have acted accordingly.

I am also one of those individuals who accepts responsibiliy for my own actions and for my own destiny.

I made the decision to store food and water. I made the decision to get out of the stock market. I made the decision to relocate my family and my business away from an area that I consider to be potentially dangerous.

The one thing that it is impossibe for me to prepare for is other peoples panic.

Anyone who thinks they can protect themselves agains a panicked mob no matter how well armed is not considering all the variables. The best solution is to be somewhere the mob is not.

If I'm wrong I will have no regrets I did what I thought I needed to do to insure my and families well being and continued existance. No apologies, no regrets.

There are those who would claim what I am doing is panic. I would have to disagree. It is neither sudden nor unreasoned. It is a well thought out decision based on the information I have avilable to me. It is really no different that the decisions I make all the time, it's just this time my life could be at stake. And there are no odds available that I would bet my life on.

"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable" Robert Heinlein

-- John Beck (eurisko111@aol.com), October 10, 1999.

My Dear Mr. Flint Sir you have impressed me by your civility and an honest question.I will try answear your question to me.

The question of when panic wil start, is not one of time. But of an event or series of events which willl set John Q. Citizen off. By postulating that Y2K is or can be a trigger for other events. You will come closer to determining the fear factor's collective reactions amoung the general populace.

I think that even the Pollies would agree that ours is the most hated nation of the face of the earth. I fear/believe that Y2K, no matter how destructive it will be, and it will be destructive. Make no mistake about that! That the advent of Y2K, will also signal to the lawless of the world that they CAN hit at the population of the US with impunity.

When such an event actually occurs, You will have your panic. And Y2K will only retard any attempts to put "Humpty Dumpty" back togeather again. But when it does go back togeather...And it will. It will be years down the road, and untold millions of Americans will not be there to answear a census taker's questions.

The industrial infrastructure will be so fractured and damaged, that we will have to re-start much of it from scratch.

It is the severe, but predictable reaction from people which will be and are the most deadly (and most predictable) respondses we, all of us, both Doomer and Pollie alike will have to face.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), October 10, 1999.

Shakey:

What I'm getting at is specific behaviors. Timing them is another matter. But consider that every time a serious winter storm is predicted here, the groceries are jammed until all the bread and milk have vanished. Is this panic? If we see a bank run, is that panic? We've certainly had our share of mobs and riots, and we read about them (they seem more common) in Europe and Asia. Are these people panicked? If an abnormally high number of unbalanced people goes postal and starts shooting up their workplaces, is this public panic? Many of these behaviors aren't "unreasoning", but they do overload a system not designed for such high incidence.

Maybe if we see enraged mobs burning down groceries that have run out of important stocks? I really do not know how to define what might constitute a public panic reaction in advance, which leaves me free to define whatever happens as 'panic' if I so choose. And the daily paper is full of bad news...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint
You ask,"why don't *you* define how we'll recognize panic."

I'd like to give it a shot.

When:
I think folks will just go along doing what they are doing now, maybe buy an extra can or two of tuna and a jug of drinking water (no panic). If panic occurs, it won't be until some concrete example of failure is evident. They turn on the faucet and there is no water, or they see a bank starting in another city, or the TV doesn't work - Eee GADS!

Where:
It will be in the local areas that are affected and then, only if they are cut off from communications and supplies from areas that are still OK.

Symptoms (These would cause me to panic if I didn't have plenty of supplies on hand):

• Nobody can tell me why certain things aren't working, what is the estimated time to repair?, how widespread is the problem?, are supplies and help on the way?
• I need some groceries. Trying to get money out of the bank that has no electricity, lines naturally develop, people get curious, anxious, start to feel threatened......
• OK, so I was fortunate to have $100 on hand before the bank problem, and I know the manager and cash register operator at the little local grocery where I usually shop. After a quick discussion, they agree to take $50 cash and let me write a check for the rest, as they assume they will get the money when the power is restored. As I walk away from the service desk, the manager says, "Better not get any meat you can't use today, the refrigeration shut off about 8 hours ago. And, please don't take more than you need for a day or two, - I'm not sure when the next truck will come in, I'd like to see everyone get a chance to have some.
• I'm hungry Momma, and I do we have any more blankets?

Please note that I personally believe the chance of this happening on a even a local scale is about 1%. That did not prevent me from doing the preps I thought were necessary.

• stocking food for 6 months
• selling my house, leaving the city
• find a way to make a living in a farming community
• get a wood stove, stock wood
• settle in with some local friendly (non militia types) who are also doing some moderate prepping

I have a duty not to be a burden or a danger to my neighbors.
Berry

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Oh, Hi Flint I just had chance to read your reply. You know the one where you replied to my potty humour.

I'm so sorry upset you. I thought a lighter atmosphere might cool the flames of your obvious impatience. There again I was wrong.

Also, you implied that I was in agreement with you, because I hadn't answered your Question. The reason that I hadn't answered your Question was I was short on time and was ignoring you and your Question.

Maybe later I'll find time to focus on your Question whatever it was.

But until then quite bringing yourself down by using that Cliched-Pollyism of: "I'll put words in your mouth for you."

Ciao Sport!

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 10, 1999.

So when you don't have time to answer, you choose an insult as the default reply? If you want to see words put in someone's mouth, I suggest you read Milne's reply on the chemical thread. It's a classic.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

82 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), October 10, 1999.

I suppose if you want qualify it, a default reply beats any default illogic.

What do you know about the chemical and refining industries bud?

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 10, 1999.

180,000 people at 20-30 shelters

If 100,000 people elect to go to shelters, that would be 3300-5000 people per shelter.

If the water system is down you would have to haul water to the shelter--at 1 gal/person/day that would be 3300-5000 gallons each day for each shelter.

If a water truck holds 5000 gallons and is loaded at 5 gallons per minutes, it would take 11-17 hours to fill the truck with the amount it needs for its shelter. It would probably take about the same amount of time to off-load the water because at higher gpms a lot of the water would be lost to spillage.

If each shelter has one tanker and they fill from 5 different locations, it would then take 44-68 hours to deliver a tanker of water to each shelter. You could improve turn around times by loading at a higher gpm and by using 2 tankers for each shelter (one unloads while the other is loading).

The sheltering organization would then have to have access to at least 20-30 or 40-60 tankers capable of carrying 3300-5000 gallons of potable water. Plus fuel for the trucks, plus drivers for the trucks.

Bottled water for that many people would probably not be feasible.

My point? If water companies are not able to deliver water in the usual fashion a lot of people are going to suffer. If water companies do not have generators to keep the pumps running and fuel to keep the generators running, they will not be able to deliver water in the usual fashion.

My other point? Shelters will not be able to handle the hordes of people who didn't hoad (oops, stockpile) supplies for themselves.

This is, of course, assuming a "localized" power failure lasting several days.

-- ?? (gimme@shelter.not), October 10, 1999.

"If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast."

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 10, 1999.

And now for a viewpoint that is different from Milne's:

"I think the American people have a resilience and a strength that is much greater than the politicians are willing to give them credit for. I do not think we're going to panic. I don't think that's going to happen. We don't have any reason to believe that's going to happen. If you look at catastrophic events over the course of this nation's history, it has been very, very unlike the American people to panic. We are the kind of people who rush in and give a hand. You know, if there's anything that characterizes us it's that kind of generosity and that kind of care for one another. And I think that that is likely to happen, even if Y2K does end up being the worst it could be. I think we have a much greater resilience than most people give us credit for." -- Jim Lord.

-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), October 10, 1999.

Buster:

I hope you're right. But I'd recommend that you read some postings on this board that discussed the conditions following the Miami hurricane a few years ago. Very disturbing.

Regards

-- b (b@b.com), October 10, 1999.

Thanks, I'll remember to hold the seat up with my paw. No facts here but you are quick with the one-liners.

-- Can't Believe It (why@post.this?), October 10, 1999.

John Beck brings up a good point. What if the power goes out pretty much everywhere, water stops coming out of faucets, etc, it looks like a worst case situation has developed when in reality the problems CAN be fixed in 2-3 days.

The government has told our population that not much will happen, the power will stay on, blah blah blah. The population WILL assume that the government has lied to them and that they are in severe trouble. A few riots break out, the national guard is called in, some dufus takes a shot at a guardsman, the NG fires back at the crowd, people flee screaming that the NG are killing people.

This is the perfect setup for panic and an out-of-control situation could have been avoided if the government had just been honest with the people it's suppose to serve.

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), October 10, 1999.

Stanley:

The logistics of what you suggest are daunting. A depressingly large percentage of the US population could take only hopelessly inadequate measures against the loss of power and water for any extended period. Even the most adamant government warnings wouldn't provide these people with the necessary resources to do so. If you were the government, what would you have suggested they do, given that they have nowhere to go?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

gimmee@shelter.not,

Thanks for doin' the math! My point exactly.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint, I suppose your question to me is how could the government have been honest with the people about this situation ?

The president should have come out with a speech last year stating that our country is facing a serious situation with regard to Y2K. He could have said that although we have started working hard on it, there was a credible possibility that we would not get it all finished in time. He could futher state that the most likely outcome would be moderate problems, but there was a strong possibility that the problems could be severe.

Therefore he has decided to start a civil defense program that will utilize the universities, military and corporations to come up with plans and projects to minimize any disruptions from this event.

He could go on to say that some people are predicting a national catastrophe, they are saying there is nothing we can do but that he doesn't believe that, he believes we are a great country that CAN rise to any challenge, foreign or domestic, we proved that in WW1, WW2, the moon race, Apollo 13.

What are the plans and projects that could have been done ? How about Government purchasing of food to be distributed when the time comes, encouraging gardening, tax credits and subsidies for earth-friendly power generation ( solar, wind, geothermal, bio-gas ) and probably a thousand and one other things we could have done to prepare our country.

These types of civil defense projects could have developed a sense of bonding in communities, a strengthing of the social fabric that would prepare the masses psychologically for any rough times ahead. They certainly would have worked also to actually decrease Y2K impacts.

Instead, with the government being quiet and dishonest with regard to this situation, it will have proved itself to be less than worthless in the people's sight, and I serously doubt that impovershed people and states will feel like sending what little money they will possess to an incompetent capital.

Please forgive any miss-spellings, as Tuvok of Voyager said " Sometimes perfection hinders efficiency. "

By the way, my own estimate: 55 % moderate outcome, 40 % severe, 5 % catastrophic , with a lot riding on how people react ie we can all work together or cut each others throats.

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), October 11, 1999.