# Disease Will Explode Post-Sandy



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)




----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I think she is correct and I think that most people are still not going to prepare in advance for this happening.


----------



## ComputerGuy (Dec 10, 2010)

Yes the Patriot Nurse


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

ComputerGuy said:


> Yes the Patriot Nurse


I posted it just for you LOL


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Here's what she doesn't account for. If you are a hermit sitting in a room all winter and not interacting with people, then you won't get the flu. Flu doesn't spontaneously emerge out of the air or ground, it must travel to you. In a normal society the comings and goings of people create a very large matrix of personal interactions whereas in a disaster scenario all those comings and goings are severely disrupted, meaning that your interaction with strangers also decreases and the same applies to the strangers (you've probably heard the saying that when you have unprotected sex with a new person you're also, in effect, sleeping with everyone that they've slept with as well) and the result is that the pathways that the flu can follow to get to you are severely crimped.

On the vitamin D levels, she's presuming a linear relationship - the more dosed you are with vitamin D the less your chance of getting the flu and we don't know that to actually be the case. It's more likely that we're dealing with a threshold effect of some sort - above a certain level your immune system is firing 100% and additional dosing of vitamin D will have no effect. Below that level your immune system is not at 100% and vitamin D is not the only component which is missing. 

What she has done though is created a hypothesis and her hypothesis can be tested. We can observe after the fact whether there is a spike in flu cases and other diseases. Her hypothesis predicts that there will be. We will see.

As for her food concerns, again there is a threshold effect as well as a slack effect. Life doesn't always work on a linear relationship between input and output.

As for her concerns about hygiene and disease spread in close quarters, she's making a logical jump that isn't warranted. Disease must first be present before lack of hygiene will allow it to flourish and close quarters will allow it to spread. Lack of hand washing by itself when in close quarters doesn't cause disease. Lot's of people can not wash their hands and be fine. In fact, to be blunt, lot's of people can not wash their hands after using a rest room and then go and eat and they'll be fine. They increase their risk of disease but they are nowhere near certain to get a disease from following unhygienic practices.

My bottom line is this: I think her prediction of disease blooming around the US as a result of Sandy's aftermath is not going to be true. She talks a good game in terms of theoretical points but theory has to be tempered by the messy business of reality and I don't see her making any such adjustments to her model of how reality functions.


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Here's what she doesn't account for. If you are a hermit sitting in a room all winter and not interacting with people, then you won't get the flu. Flu doesn't spontaneously emerge out of the air or ground, it must travel to you.


You can get the flu from your poultry or your swine. You don't have to mix with people to get it.


----------

