Replies

if the vaccine is given within 4 days after exposure to smallpox, it can lessen the severity of illness or even prevent it. Dramatically reducing the 30% fatality calculations.

Thats true BUT with a usual 10 day incubation period, most people have no idea they have been exposed to it--and so dont know to get a vaccine for it--Not to mention there isnt enough vaccine for more than a 3 state area. I know they are rushing production at this time--but it usually takes 2 years to produce it. Govt restrictions of its production have been waived (to a certain extent), and the current batches very possibly may not be as safe as if we had planned ahead. Even in that light, I wish my children and I were vaccinated.

In addition, patients with smallpox can benefit from supportive therapy (e.g., intravenous fluids, medicine to control fever or pain) and antibiotics for any secondary bacterial infections that may occur. Such therapies also compromise the 30% fatality calculation.

Thats another problem highlighted in the Dark Winter study--The amount and availabilty of supportive antibiotics become severely strained when this type of scenario occurs--because of the numbers of people requiring those medications.

Even if smallpox was weaponized and dispursed on a small population, epidemic status is the material of fiction writers and resembles nothing of what the medical resources of the USA could deploy to contain such an attack.

I respectfully disagree---Most healthcare workers are not vaccinated for smallpox--and would be among the first wave of people to contract the disease since they would be exposed quicker and more frequently. Most healthcare workers wouldnt even recognize the disease. We are mustering quickly to learn, but everything takes time. As far as epidemic status, any healthcare worker will tell you that even one case of smallpox constitutes a global emergency.

Games such as "Dark Winter" are informative and useful. But to protract that such senarios would actually happen in real life to the calculations of the game makers is sensational and not responsible.

I don't agree, the study was not done for play or by any irresponsible group. It was done by the experts in this field, to try to learn what hazards we might face and to take action now to avoid those problems. That is the responsible thing to do and the only way we learn without direct experience. It's worth a serious read and some contemplation.

I did read the material you presented. I made this statement based upon several considerations.

Games such as "Dark Winter" are informative and useful for exactlly the reasons you stated. But to protract that such senarios would actually happen in real life to the calculations of the game makers is sensational and not responsible. There is no irresponsibility in creating such game situations, only sensational irresponsibility to protract that real life could equal the senarios or better them.