Red Cross volunteers, acting as potentially anthrax-exposed Pentagon employees, remove their "contaminated" clothing before being "decontaminated" during Gallant Fox 06 May 17 in a Pentagon parking lot. The exercise tested the response of Pentagon police and local and federal agencies to a biological attack at the Pentagon. Photo by Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
Could US Handle Biologic Attack? -- Kristina Wong, The Hill
The slow-footed federal response to Ebola shows that the United States would be overwhelmed by a biological attack, experts warn.
Ever since 9/11, security analysts have said it’s only a matter of time before terrorists acquire the means to attack the country with a bioweapon.
While experts say Ebola would not make the most effective biological weapon, the problems seen in the response to the virus — from confusion over treatment protocols to a shortage of specialized medical facilities and trained workers — would be magnified if a biological agent were unleashed in the United States.
Read more ....
My Comment: When one looks at the U.S. response to one Ebola infection in Dallas .... I would have to say no .... we are definitely not ready to respond to a biological attack.
5 comments:
Well, I'd have to say you're probably very wrong.
Here's why things would go "better" during a biological attack than during the EBV scare.
First of all,the first thing that would happen in that there would probably be a large initial wave of cases (depending on the agent, whether or not it was bioengineered, etc.). This would trigger the biosurveillance apparatus we've been developing over the last ten years.
Depending on the agent, you would have the Mayor, Governor, and then Possibly the President declare a Public Health Emergency. This has never happened before in the US and would completely change the complexion of the incident. They would have a whole new set of powers to rapidly identify the agent, confirm the ID, and then start distributing both treatment and prophylaxis (The stockpiles of antibiotics, anti-virals, vaccines, protective equipment and other gear we have stockpiled would blow you mind). This would allow them to isolate and quarantine people and (in the worst-case) prevent people from travel outside the affected areas.
Of course it would take time for symptoms to appear, to idenitfy the agent and to recognize that this was deliberate. But the entire public health infrastructure of the United States would be mobilized. You would have things initially overwhelmed, but once people got mibilized things would settle down.
Now, obviously there are agents out there that could, if distributed widely enough, completely overwhelm things, but that would be the absolute worst-case scenario. What we plan for is the worst of the most likely scenarios, which you should. Our planning is not based on a particular threat, but the level of capability needed to address a variety of realistic threats.
Biological attacks are hard to pull off, including effecient dissimination of the agent.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be bad, but it wouldn't be the type of crap we're seeing in Africa.
I disagree.
James: Wow. Insightful comment. Would you care to elaborate?
The administration would not be able to handle the panic. If it becomes known that 25 Al Qaeda supporters are walking around in Chicago, L.A., New York city, Washington, etc. with small pox .... the chaos that would ensue would be overwhelming. Any outbreak will be contained .... that I have no doubt .... but it is the other factors that will dictate the public's reaction and the government's reaction.
That's a different argument entirely. I don't think that's the administration's fault, I would blame the media and the 24/7 news cycle. This is something that's proven, time and again, to be unmanagable.
If it bleeds, it leads...
Look at the fear and rumor-mongering that has taken place in the last few weeks, for no good reason.
It's idiotic and should be criminal in the way that shouting Fire! in a crowded theater is illegal.
Post a Comment