It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government Asks Public for Advice on Pandemic Treatment Priorities

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
When the pandemic hits, there will not be enough vaccines, anti-viral medications, ventilators or hospital beds for everyone . Controversies are raging about prioritizing patients, allocating resources, and triage policies (deciding which patients get treated and which don't). In a Dec 14 Federal Register notice, the (US) Department of Health and Human Services invited the American public to comment on setting pandemic treatment priorities. Key questions are: "What objectives, principles, criteria, assumptions, and rationales should be considered in allocating supplies? How can fairness, equity, efficiency, and related principles be reflected in the determinations? Who (federal, state, or local authorities) should determine when and how the vaccine is distributed and administered?" The deadline for submitting comment is Jan 18, 2007.

 



www.cidrap.umn.edu
Dec 21, 2006 (CIDRAP News) – The Department of Health and Human Services is seeking help from the public in figuring out how to allocate scarce supplies of influenza vaccine in the event of a flu pandemic.

In a Dec 14 Federal Register notice, HHS invited the public to submit comments on which groups should have priority for receiving pre-pandemic and pandemic vaccines and on related issues. The deadline for commenting is Jan 18, 2007.

A federal interagency task force will use the comments in developing guidance to help state and local governments, cities, tribes, territories, and the private sector decide how to allocate vaccine doses, the notice says.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



These all are tough questions, and there are no easy answers. People who don't make the cut may face a death sentence.

I think putting the questions to the public is a responsible thing to do - even though it does seem to offload responsibility.

What do you think?

* What objectives, principles, criteria, assumptions, and rationales should be considered in allocating supplies?
* How can fairness, equity, efficiency, and related principles be reflected in the determinations?
* Who (federal, state, or local authorities) should determine when and how the vaccine is distributed and administered?


I propose that we discuss these questions here, then email our responses as an ATS submission to HHS by the deadline on January 18, 2007.



[edit on 22/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
My first instinct is not to touch this one, not even with a ten-foot pole.

Here's a thought though.

The new infectious diseases like bird flu tend to kill young adults, and adolescents - those with strong immune systems.

But - Standard flu policy prioritizes the very young, immune compromised and elderly for vaccines.

I think this policy needs to be revised. The new policy should prioritize vaccinating young adults, especially those in key services like health.


?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think the reality of the situation is that priorities are already established for the most part. First to be vaccinated will be the powerful and the remaining resources will break down to the wealthy. The vast majority won't be getting anything, except maybe martial law! So I guess I should include some military and police with the powerful, since they can't protect themselves.

Having said that, I don't think that they will be able to maintain order overall. There will be some pockets of control, but there are just too many people for effective policing.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I hear you, HimWhoHathAnEar - and if you've read my other posts you know I share your concerns, in spades.

BUT - I think we need to take this offer at face value.

We have nothing to lose by doing so, and might have a lot to gain. Not the least of which is a motive and opportunity to educate ourselves on the realities we face.





posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
With Limited Supplies of Vaccine, I suggest the following priorities
1) Health care providers and First Responders
2) Mothers with nursing infants
3) Infants (up to age 2 yrs)
4) People up to age 65 with immunological issues
5) Other children up to age 18
6) Young Adults (up to age 45)
7) Persons age 65 and older
8) Any other person who desires the vaccine
9) Members of Congress
10) The White House



[edit on 12/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Thanks for your input donwhite.


...But what about other essential services? Like electricity and water, for example. Those workers could get sick too, and where would we be without water and electricity?

?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

by Soficrow
But what about other essential services?


I think this hits the nail on the head. Because what about food services and communications and on and on. There are a ton of essentials these days. You take out almost any one and you disturb the whole structure.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

There are a ton of essentials these days. You take out almost any one and you disturb the whole structure.




True.

But do you think you can prioritize the essentials?



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
First Principle: Save the Anthropologists!


O.K., well, everyone's going to have their own criteria.

I like don white's

I'd also suggest allocating them in the US by state. I would NOT do it by population, since this would work AGAINST states with rural populations.

What you'd want to avoid, in my opinion, is having whole regions with no vaccine. And distributing vaccines by random selection by populations density would mean most of the "winners" would be on the coast.

The simple fact is, ANY diminishing of a sector of US population would diminish our society. Yes, the homeless too. They function as an economic safety valve, and if they all died, you'd see the economic system spiral out of control, via inflation, as 100% employment would cause this.

Any of you read the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Remember the society that got rid of its extraneous members like hairdressers, artists, telemarketers, street cleaners, by telling them there was a coming epidemic, and they were being shipped off to a refuge planet--and the artistic types would be saved first?

The puncline was, the host society was extinctified by a virus spread by public pay phones. All of the municipal pay-phone disinfectors had been shipped off with the other "useless" workers.

I'll sum up with a quote from one of my favorite movies:




. . . It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would bemuch time, and little to do.
But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years." Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.



all the best.
.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

by Soficrow
But do you think you can prioritize the essentials?


'I' could. But in this country, at this time, the lifestyle of most people is at such a fantastic level......... Priorties get fuzzy when you're used to having everything ya know?

I would like to be constructive in this matter, but looking at the big picture.........alot of people are looking for an excuse to go chaotic. It's a by product of being spoiled I guess. We live better than any King of the olden days, no drafty castles, just temp control, entertainment from so many sources, light at the flick of a switch, superior transportation and on and on........ Take something away from the spoiled and watch the tantrum start



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Just to clarify:

Most people would survive even the worst pandemic.

The 'planning problem' is about keeping society together and functioning, and preventing absolute chaos - OR fascist takeover.

Open and transparent prioritizing is essential. And if we don't contribute, as concerned individuals, others will run with the ball.


FYI



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
First I would suggest that the responsibility does not change. That the powers at be should still have enough vaccine for the masses.

Second, I would suggest the limited supplies be given first to the people who have the best possible chance at recovery, to be decided by the health care professionals.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
A fedral agency asking the rabble for input; now that's a switch.

If a serious epidemic actually occurs, I think the laws of natural selection will probably take over regardless of vaccine distrubition.

Still the people with good HMOs will get the vaccine first no matter what the results of "public input as to allocation."



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
actually, whaa, that's not true.

There is a very serious disease among small children called rotavirus.

The CDC has helped develop a vaccine which is only now reaching the market. It is being distributed to clinics for their MEDICARE/TX WELFARE patients FIRST, and is not available via insurance, HMO, etc.

As a matter of fact, many vaccines for children are ONLY available this way, and insurance doesn't pay the fee (up to $180!), while welfare recipients get the vaccine for FREE. There will even be a certain amount of vaccine that the doctors must hold for any unexpected welfare patients who might walk in. If they run out of vaccine for the paying patients, they have to call the government and get permission to use the allocated vaccines.

The government is not always as "unfair" as what you're told by the media.

Unless making middle class pay for what others get for free without an appointment seems unfair.

.



[edit on 25-12-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   


posted by soficrow

Thanks for your input donwhite...But what about other essential services? Like electricity and water, for example. Those workers could get sick too, and where would we be without water and electricity?



Two follow-on questions. I understand we cannot make the vaccine until after the virus has manifested itself. Even then, it is not a certainty there will be an epidemic or pandemic. I mean, H5N1 has been beating around the globe for a year or so already and so far, it’s been confined. I have heard it would cost several billion dollars to make up enough vaccine to be useful for the general population. The longer we delay in production of the vaccine, the more people will die, for sure, but if the flu does not strike, then the less money we’ve spent for “insurance.” Since these are issues that will be present at every possible flu pandemic for the foreseeable future, why don’t we decide what our strategy will be and publicize it so everyone can make his or her own plans? Where do you stop in setting priorities? At some point, everyone is essential to something.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I guess NASA must be perplexed as well. Very, very strange. Just makes one want to say "gimme, gimme, gimme".



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
This itself is a very interesting article: Pandemic Treatment Priorities is something that I think everyone will be interested. Especailly if these two cases of "bird flu" in the last few days, turn out to be true.

However, I am afraid I disagree with Don White's view point on who to save first. The list in my view is actually rather different, with people under the age of 10 and those over the age of 40 not being given treatment. The list itself should be rather simple:

Core Workers, health care, food distributation services.
People between the age of 23 and 33.
People aged between 18 and 23.
People aged between 33 and 40.
People ages under 18.
The rest.

To give children the treatment first is well stupid to be blunt. If there is not enough for everyone and a large number of adults will die, the children will not survive. The way we have raised children they are dependent on adults. Very few minors can cook for themselves or would even know how to catch food, etc, without their parents there. So even if they do survive the pandemic they'd then die out in the aftermath. After all, this is so large scale it is likely it would kill off a lot of people who were not given treatment and maybe many who were. Society as we know it would stop functioning, power stations, etc, would be of almost no use. You need people who can survive and can then re-populate the other. Not children.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

Two follow-on questions. I understand we cannot make the vaccine until after the virus has manifested itself. Even then, it is not a certainty there will be an epidemic or pandemic. I mean, H5N1 has been beating around the globe for a year or so already and so far, it’s been confined.




H5N1 is not confined - it's endemic in Asia, and moving into Africa. Low path H5N1 also is present in North America and elsewhere - and can mutate quite easily.

There is NO doubt there will be a pandemic - the only questions are "When?" and "What?"

The significance of bird flu is that a) it's widespread, b) it can hybridize with any of a huge number of other zoonotic diseases, and c) thereby confer greater virulence, and more easily gain the ability for human-to-human transmission.





I have heard it would cost several billion dollars to make up enough vaccine to be useful for the general population. The longer we delay in production of the vaccine, the more people will die, for sure, but if the flu does not strike, then the less money we’ve spent for “insurance.”




It's not just cost, or the fact that we do not yet know what vaccine might be needed - but the world simply does not have anywhere near adequate vaccine manufacturing capacity.





Since these are issues that will be present at every possible flu pandemic for the foreseeable future, why don’t we decide what our strategy will be and publicize it so everyone can make his or her own plans?




People still believe that technology will save them - when in fact, the opposite is true.

Technology has created antibiotic and antiviral resistance germs - and as far as our "defenses" go, we're almost back where we started.

So public education is needed - and people need to know they are pretty much on their own. Just like their great-grandparents were.





Where do you stop in setting priorities? At some point, everyone is essential to something.



VERY good question and comment.

Most nations' Pandemic Plans are designed to 'protect the economy,' and 'prevent chaos.' That's why essential service workers and providers are prioritized, along with elected officials.

If the goals were different, we might see different plans.

???




top topics



 
5

log in

join