Mr. Sandman

I've always respected Peter Sandman, but that comment, assuming he was quoted in context and correctly in the article, is reprehensible IMO.

I quote him on my Web site, and I'm debating either placing a caveat on links to his materials or removing them altogether.

btw, a new article on convincing your boss to act: http://psandman.com/...

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

My problem is that the "back burner" comment seems to be a complete repudiation of his preppers mantra to date.

Putting the pandemic "on the back burner for the majority of Americans"

http://tinyurl.com/2...

Monotreme at PFI
This is a must read for flubies- I am reposting this

Putting the pandemic "on the back burner for the majority of Americans"

"When I first heard of Drs. Sandman and Lanard (a husband and wife consulting team), it was in glowing terms. They were cited as eloquent advocates for effective "risk communication". I confess I had never heard of "risk communication" before, but assumed it to be an outgrowth of bioethics. I imagined Drs. Sandman and Lanard as tweedy academics, carefully analyzing ethical issues involved in disseminating scary information for the benefit of the public.

I could not have been more wrong. Although Dr. Sandman used to be an academic, he isn't anymore. Instead, he is a highly paid, well, actually, extremely highly paid (between $650 and $1,200 per hour) consultant (some would say apologist) for giant corporations and institutions. Dr. Lanard is a psychiatrist who also works as a consultant using the strategies that she and Dr. Sandman developed together. Dr. Sandman isn't shy about acknowledging his reasons for leaving academia (from Muddling My Way into Risk Communication ... and Beyond, by Peter Sandman):

Jody supposed I would find another academic job. But I was already finding consulting by far the most satisfying part of my work, having learned to my great surprise that corporate executives listened more attentively and intelligently than sophomores, and had more of interest to say back. And even part-time consulting was already earning me more than my salary.

Here is a partial list of his corporate clients (from the Center for Media and Democracy and his CV):
* ARCO
* Chemical Manufacturers Association
* Ciba Geigy
* Dow Chemical
* Du Pont
* Exxon
* Monsanto
* Newmont Mining
* Phelps Dodge Corporation
* Shell International Ltd.
* Union Carbide

Drs. Sandman's and Lanard's particular niche in the PR field is to "engage" activists, soothe them, and ultimately get them to accept whatever it is the giant corporation or institution has done or intends to do. Their backgrounds in psychology and psychiatry make them ideally suited to accomplish this. The strategy is not to defend everything their paymasters have done; instead, they will actually offer mild criticism and gentle rebukes of their own clients. This often puts activists off guard. Drs. Sandman and Lanard are seen as neutral intermediaries at worst and perhaps as actually on the side of the activists. The strategy partly depends on getting the activists to forget that the giant corporations/institutions are paying Drs. Sandman and Lanard huge sums of money to get the activists off their back. They seem to be very successful at this.

We may all disagree with Sandman's recent statement about "flu on the back burner", but that does not mean that everything he has ever written or done is no good.

This stuff about him working for these large corportations is very unsettling, but I would like to hear his side of the story before deciding that Peter Sandman is some sort of greedy money grubbing immmoral creature.

Anyway, I'm not sure where all this anger is coming from and it sure does seem like a waste of energy.  If/when PF gets here, we are all going to be in the same boat and it won't matter who predicted it and who was in denial. Being "right" will certainly be a moot point if we have a 50% CFR and are in danger of collapse of our social structures.

My interest in Sandman is in his work relating to pandemic preparation discussions. Villifying him for his ties to big business is of no concern to me. I have other fish to fry.

I wouldn't say I'm angry about his comment. First, I wonder if he was even quoted correctly by the reporter.

There are so many things that can happen between the actual interview, the reporter filing the story, and the editor stripping the edited copy into the layout on deadline that I would not be surprised if he didn't actually make the statement as quoted.

However, if he was quoted accurately, his statement, IMO, is hypocritical and irresponsible.

As an old friend of mine says: 'Is' ain't 'should'.

If what Sandman was commenting on is the state of current interest and attention on TV and in public polling, then he is indisputably correct.  If he was saying it should be relegated to a back burner, then it would be completely off the stove.

I do take into consideration where an expert makes his or her money.  Just like politics, it matters.  It is not the only thing, but it matters.  So I appreciate the offerred information on that count.

That said, I have read more than a few of Sandman's articles and have found that they would be, if followed in both letter and spirit, admirable standards for public handling of communications during (and before) a disaster.

The likely reason he is hired by a variety of organizations is that his assessment of how the public decides what is important, what matters, has value.  Who uses that knowledge and how it is used (or misused) is beyond the basic principles of those articles.

 

ITW(Joel J)
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
 

Personally, I'm only interested in truth.  Not one iota of interest in a smooth, appealing message.  And I bet more people are like me than not.  And those who'd rather ingest attractive propaganda?  They won't like truth no matter how nicely it's dressed up.

People need to be woken up, not soothed back into slumber.

I cannot trust a paid spokesperson who will speak the required propaganda depending on who is writing the checks. 

By the same token, are we not to trust anybody who is paid to tell us anything?  May I ask what you do for a living, and whether there is any validity to consider what you say in your job to be untrustworthy just cos you are paid?

Personally, I'm only interested in truth.  Not one iota of interest in a smooth, appealing message.

Do we all need to unlearn grammar and language, and mimick those afflicted by tics or stutters, perhaps, in order to win your trust?  btw I believe that Hitler did stutter quite badly...

People need to be woken up, not soothed back into slumber.

Absolutely!  Can't agree more!
 



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

IMHO.

It is better to look ahead and prepare than to look back and regret.

  http://www.flickr.co...

Communities and "all" stakeholders could have been making contingency plans, 16 months ago; if some of us have had to over-focus, it was because nothing was being done to prepare households and that is too risky and unsafe.

We should be careful not to get too focussed on how many bloggers can dance on the head of risk communications consultant.

I think this is what we are talking about.  If so, no biggie. 

The great flu pandemic: Despite dire warnings, public interest has waned

The risk of pandemic had its moment in the sun, where the public was interested, and people were talking about it in grocery lines," risk-communications expert Peter Sandman says. "Then people got used to it, and interest settled into the new normal."
...
Pandemic is "on the back burner for the majority of Americans, where it should be," Sandman says, but "it's not on the back burner of governments and companies."

I think all of us can relate to that statement. 

I didn't have time to read everything (there's a lot on that site!), but it seems that his point is it is very difficult to convince the publc to prep.  It also seems that much of his writing is geared towards risk assesment, etc.  This is something corporations would be interested in from a general business standpoint as well how it relates to AF.  High paid consultants like him get audiences with top-dogs at big companies.  I've been to plenty of presentations by guys like him and if they are good presenters the audience eats it up like candy.  If he can get some to listen to 1) the threat, 2) the need for their companies to prep for their employees/corporations 3) the need to gear up their production for prep/survival items for the public, healthcare sector,ervices sector, etc. 4) get involved in educating their employees and the public -

Well, then great.  Every little bit helps.  I can't knock him just because he gets paid to do it, as long as his message helps and not hurts. 

Could you please name some of them? We are always looking for additional great risk communication experts and speakers.

He just spent $3,000 on a new computer, but there is no money for preps (of course- you spend your money on what is important and pressing). Important and pressing are values that are disseminated. Oscar Night is important and pressing. So is Super Bowl- (got to post this and get to the TV)

Here in NZ, we still have the lame, "prepare for natural disaster" adds on TV. It is always with a backdrop of wind and rain- ie, you might miss a few meals and have to bundle up in a sleeping bag for a few days if you don't prepare now- big deal. The police  and firemen might not be able to get through to you for a few days.

Positive Thinking is driving me up the wall. "Don't worry about that persistent cough and the blood you are spitting up- just cut down on smoking and say lots of affirmations. Anyone saying the "C" word is just a fear mongerer"

My concern is with the message going forward. This is not the time to be telling people that pandemic belongs on the back burner.

If that's the song he plans to sing going forward, he's lost my respect.

However, I doubt that is the case. And I will wait and watch what comes out of the CIDRAP conference eagerly.

It makes sense and I have quoted him often.

I'd suggest giving him and Mike Osterholm the benefit of the doubt, but by all means read the pieces he's written (and Osterholm's if you haven't).

I have them linked in the risk communication section of the flu wiki on the links page. I think they are that good.

Melanie likes to say we are all risk communicators in our own way. We could all use some of those skills.;-)

Folks, good people are being attacked for no good reason.Maybe we all need a break from that.That's not how we should be working.

There are in fact four levels of this disease. Without belaboring it, let me just list them. One is the panzootic we have already of H5N1 in birds; particularly domestic birds. The second is the zoonotic outbreaks that people are getting sick from; apparently mostly from contact with diseased or dead birds, and secondarily through other vectors that between birds and humans.

That's been some 200 people and it's not yet a big deal, but it is seen by the public as a big deal. The third is a mild pandemic, which WHO is mostly worried about. This would be a pandemic along the lines of 1957 or 1968 for which preparedness is mostly a medical issue and a health issue. The fourth is a severe pandemic-anything similar to 1918 or worse-where the main issues would not be medical issues, but infrastructure issues. The uncertainties relate to secondary catastrophes; from running out of food, running out of e n e r g y, or running out of chlorine to keep the water clean. Of course, the business continuity issues are the most acute in the last of these four scenarios.  So, I think keeping them separate is incredibly important.

The second point I'd like to make is that, with the severe pandemic in humans, the risk communication issue that makes that very difficult is that the risk is unknown, but it's a low-probability event. High magnitude, low - probability risks are hard for people to think about. T h e re are plenty of people who read about pandemic influenza on the internet and elsewhere, and have reached the conclusion that a severe pandemic is definitely going to happen. Or, they focus on the low probability and decide it's not worth worrying about. Neither of those makes for good planning. The business community has wisely adjusted to the notion that something is hugely important even if it's unlikely, and that it is worth buying insurance against. Hedging is a concept that's easy for the business community to understand.

I think you want to say to the public, "could get worse, could get better." Meanwhile, the risk is about the same as it was six months ago. If you're a whole lot more worried than you were six months ago, or a whole lot less worried than you were six months ago, then you're in a minority and you're playing a hunch.
...
The two most important reasons for raising employee awareness now relate to improving psychological and logistical preparedness. The third reason, of course, is so that employees can participate in, and become confident in, the company's precautionary measures. Any reasonable program that a company is going to develop for business continuity is going have to include talking to employees and seeking guidance from employees in advance.
...
Most experts in communication are not worried that alerting people to a risk that has not yet materialized is capable of producing panic. Panic is quite rare. Even in crisis situations, panic is quite rare. Panicky feelings are not rare. Most people master those feelings. If you look at behavior in the stairwells of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, you see a lot of people who felt panicky, but evacuated the building with dispatch and courtesy. In many cases, they exhibited heroic behavior to help their neighbors. It is vanishingly unlikely that you can induce panic in people about something that may or may not happen.

You may scare them enough to start taking it seriously, which could get them to start reading about it, and thinking about it, and wanting to take precautions, and asking the company tough questions....

This is from June of 2006 and I don't know if his conclusions would be much different, but as to the general tone I don't see any coddling here or significant happy-talk to lead public into sleepy ignorance or inaction.  Quite the contrary. 

Other than drawing conclusions soley on his corporate connections, are there examples of Sandman doing the negative things that have been suggested above?

ITW(Joel J)
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
 

As for his corporate ties, that's a red herring, IMO. The man consults with all sorts of organizations, for profit, non-profit, and everything in between.

The witch hunt over corporate ties is overblown and is not a concern I share.

The cornerstone of Western justice is built on innocence until proven guilty. 

I still don't know what Sandman is supposed to have done, I don't know what he does for Monsanto.  I haven't read what other flu sites say about this.  But I will give you this:

if your judgment is based on third hand opinions and pre-conceptions about entities that may or may not be relevant to the point under discussion, and if we all accept this as the 'new normal', then we are in grave danger of betraying what we hold most dear.

Beware of slippery slopes.  None of us can hold onto the truth if we allow opinions, gossip, and bigotry, to override information.  Find it, prove it, believe it.  Not before.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

I think y'all are making way too much out of a tiny bit of a USAToday article.  For most people, anything other than the crises that are on their immediate plate are all they can handle.  Heaven knows that I spend my days doing a whole lot more than prepping for bird flu.  Does that mean that it is on the "back burner" for me?  Is that what Sandman means?  Not having the gift of mind reading, all I can assume is that his suggestion is what I am already doing.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is engaged in a great struggle.--Philo of Alexandria

As to working for Arco or Exxon or Dow or General Motors or any other large corporation, there are millions of individuals who work for these companies who are not evil. There are also millions of nice little old ladies and men who live off retirement accounts that hold stock in these companies too.

(Nice to see you posting again, Melanie.)

I agree completely with that statement. What I don't buy is that "back burner" is synonymous with "balanced level of concern and preparedness." In fact, by definition, it is the exact opposite.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: back burner
Function: noun
Date: 1963
: the condition of being out of active consideration or development - usually used in the phrase on the back burner

And we all know Mr. Sandman chooses his words with great care. If he was quoted correctly, the message stinks.

But in the big picture, this discussion is moot. It's not like Peter Sandman is having any huge impact on the general public's state of preparedness.

Crisis Communication Best Practices:
Some Quibbles and Additions August 2006

...In addition to tolerating people's fears, crisis communicators sometimes need to help ignite them. This is especially the case in pre-crisis communication. If the purpose of fear is to motivate precautions, after all, then the fear must come before the precautions are needed. This should be self-evident, yet officials and journalists are often critical of what seems to them premature fearfulness. (The New York Times once headlined that "Fear Is Spreading Faster than SARS" *as if it weren't supposed to.) People who have gone through a fearful "adjustment reaction'' before a crisis begins are better prepared to cope with the crisis, emotionally as well as logistically.  Pre-crisis communication *arguably a hybrid of precaution advocacy and crisis communication* is missing from the best practices. The best practices rightly advise crisis communicators to do advance planning (#2), but nowhere does the list advise them to do advance communication . . . so the public can do its own advance planning (and help with yours). When I advise clients on their crisis communication plans, one of the things I ask them to do is to imagine that the crisis has just begun and to make a list of things they will then wish the public had already learned or already done. That list is a good start on a pre-crisis communication agenda.

One major reason why officials neglect pre-crisis communication is fear of fear. In the summer and fall of 2005, I participated in months of agonizing debate by U.S. government communicators over how aggressively to warn the public about a possible influenza pandemic. A heartfelt reluctance to frighten people was one of the oft-repeated reasons to avoid emphatic pandemic warnings.
...
Failure to respect the public is a consistent problem in crisis communication. You can see it most vividly, perhaps, in officials' attitudes toward precautions. The best practices section on self-efficacy (#10) focuses on offering people things to do. The list mentions, but does not stress sufficiently, offering them choices of things to do, thus drawing on their ability to decide, not just their ability to act. And the best practices don't even mention the possibility that they might come up with their own precautions.

His information on pandemic preparedness was among the most pivotal in clarifying for me the need to prep. So I know full well that he, in past print, electronic, and other communications has been a proponent of prepping.

And therein lies the rub. Saying that pandemic prep is a back burner issue is entirely incongruous with his past stance.

That said, I am not rushing to any judgment. In posts above, I've said quite clearly that my first question is whether he was even quoted correctly. And I've said he has (IMO) an excellent reputation.

I do think that if he was quoted correctly, the message that he sent by using that phrase was--again, IMO--the wrong one.

But since I'll never know for sure what his intentions were in using that phrase, there's really little point in debating it. It's late. I'm tired. And, frankly, the subject doesn't really engender passion enough (at least for me) to burn the midnight oil.

Mr. Sandman, what prompted you to say that?  What are your justifications?  Do you know something that you're not sharing with us?

His recomndation for HCW were a joke. Nothing but pure spin. Crock of horse hooey Spin spin spin into compliance, get those HCW lulled into believing that TPTB have thier best intrest at heart, and oh BTW sorry we didnt buy those masks for you so you wont die but we didnt know what to do.

Im keeping my outrage, and encouraging other to do the same.

Ever noticed that in criminal trials the high priced doctors always seem to agree with the side that writes thier checks. With Mr Sandman its caveat emptor.

http://www.psandman....

I'm so glad that there are so many people here capable of reading his mind and judging his resume, including a few who admitted that they didn't even know what "risk communication" is.  I guess that would make someone an excellent judge.

Y'all are still putting way too much importance on a little USAToday story.  As someone who gets regularly taken out of context by the press, I think a little benefit of the doubt is in order.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is engaged in a great struggle.--Philo of Alexandria

Spin, huh?  Have you got any evidence to back up your claims?  You are making assertions as if they were facts.  Can you rebut anything on Dr. Sandman's site?

There are good, solid reasons why he is well thought of as a risk communicator and why he and Dr. Lanard have been invited to the CIDRAP conference.  What have you got besides allegations?

Be kind, for everyone you meet is engaged in a great struggle.--Philo of Alexandria

If I were a newbie, I would quickly sense that I should trust TPTB and MSM more than before. These flubies look like a bunch of fear mongers or nut cases. I would end up listen to "the government" instead. What a shame.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.

People who post just to be disruptive and sit back and watch the fun are called trolls.I have no other information to offer, but please keep in mind this diary does not appear to have been posted to build community or offer something positive to the site.

I am always reluctant to remove material from the Forum. To remove the diary removes all the comments... that's how the software works.But I am very close to doing so.

Please consider this as you consider your responses.

Thank you.

Didn't we always say, support what you are saying with source, data etc?  The top diary is nothing more than a silly taunt from someone who has never posted, who then disappears instead of sticking around to discuss, debate, or hey, even just to meet everyone!

What do you call someone who climbs over your fence and pees in your backyard?



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

I have children who I swore a sacred oath to at their births. Nobody is paying me- and if they were, I would still speak my truth.

I don't know who started this thread, but if he/she hadn't, I would have.

Putting food and water in storage for 40 days or more (I pick that number because it is Biblical and is a true quarantine) is the single act that can easily done by almost everybody in the West. It is a no-brainer, when you have been on the flu boards for awhile. It is inexpensive and in fact saves people money over time- bulk food is cheap (and healthy) food, the complete antithesis of junk food.

It is common sense- and can only be done before the fact-Our governments should have been forcing people to prep with food, water and masks for the last 18 months. Give them tax breaks- fine them- get celebrities to show off their prep supplies- make movies about it.

Government should be nagging, forcing, yelling, convincing- we are not discussing the merits of teeth brushing before bed. It is more important.

CAVEAT: You have to read this slowly and carefully, otherwise you would miss it.  on page 53

During a severe pandemic, it will be important for individuals and families to plan to have extra supplies on hand, as people may not be able to get to a store, stores may be out of supplies, and other services (e.g., community soup kitchens and food pantries) may be disrupted. Communities and families with school-age children who rely on school meal programs should anticipate and plan as best they can for a disruption of these services and school meal programs for up to 12 weeks.

Looks to me we're headed that way.  No, it ain't enough.  I wish the whole world was ready yesterday, but one step forward is one step.  Remember also that this is interim, and state and local government are supposed to start engaging in exercises, risk communication, public engagement etc.  Feedback from these activities will be incorporated into subsequent updates. 

It's as close as you're going to get, for now.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

The issue that people are objecting to is that the PTB, and Sandman, are saying all of the "right" things, only very quietly. You know, the mumbled apology at the playground. "But I did say "sorry"- but did you mean it? of course not. They are covering their collective asses. "But we told people to prep, to store food- but verrrry quietly- it was on page 53- but we told you. It is your fault. Why didn't you get out a magnifying glass and read it?".

In NZ, we have many graphic TV adds every day, over and over- "Do Not Drink and Drive" "Do Not Speed" or "We will arrest you and make you very sorry". Nobody has panicked- we have stopped drinking and driving- we have stopped speeding. simple- so so simple. simple simple simple

The elderly, the young mothers on welfare, the migrant workers...how are these folks going to be able to prep when it's all they can do just to make ends meet?  How can they buy more than what they need when they can't even feed their family for an entire month with what they make?  I'm talking about families that start out with square meals at the start of the month and end up at the end of the month without enough food for the last few days until more money arrives at the start of the next month.

What may seem to be simple for those with the means to make it happen is insurmountable for those living on the edge.  What is going to happen to those who depend on a paycheck to keep their family afloat?  If they have to SIP, with no food and no money, and with children to feed, what do they do? 

90% of the people in the West could find the money to start prepping tomorrow if they thought their lives and happiness depended on it. It is as simple as the messages on packs of cigarettes- "smoking kills!"

Being unprepared during a pandemic will severely shorten your life expectancy.

end of risk communication

Unpacking the Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance

"recommendation for 12 weeks preps page 53 "During a severe pandemic, it will be important for individuals and families to plan to have extra supplies on hand, as people may not be able to get to a store, stores may be out of supplies, and other services (e.g., community soup kitchens and food pantries) may be disrupted. Communities and families with school-age children who rely on school meal programs should anticipate and plan as best they can for a disruption of these services and school meal programs for up to 12 weeks."

Would anybody out there respond to this "call to arms" if it was their first contact? If it came in the mail, I would glance at it and chuck it. Totally passionless- no belief in the message- probably written by a 21 year old marketing graduate.

Why not describe what would happen during a SEVERE pandemic and tell people what they have got to do, now and with urgency in order to protect the lives of their families??

How many beautiful people will die because of this uninspiring drivel???

The local volunteers, activists, even local officials can use this document, point to certain paragraphs, and say "Now here's what WE are going to do about this."

The people on the ground can get average person's attention better than the federal government can.


GetPandemicReady.org - non commerical website with practical ways for families to prepare.

The intent here was to provoke some open discussion
in response to the Mr. Sandman's  'back burner' comment.

As a new participant I might have tip-toed into the arena
with a more bland question; I opted to try this approach instead.
It often works well, though of course it can only work well
if the following remarks are redirected by the teacher
(or diarist in this case) to the central question.

As it happens I ended up being away all day yesterday
with our daughter at her hockey game and wasn't able
to do the rest of the job I started. My bad - I didn't foresee
being away that long, or the volume of the response.
Sorry about that. Among the comments, though, there
does seem to be some productive discussion in spite
of my regrettable absence.

He is paid professional- so must be under intense scrutiny- it comes with his high wages and huge influence.

"Place your 12-month subscription order for only $897
Your paid subscription includes a single-user account, which gives you 24/7 access to the site and e-mailed issues of the Weekly Briefing. Please call us toll-free at 1-866-395-0017 to inquire about purchasing accounts for multiple users."

http://cidrapsource....

Alternative opinions are welcomed, and mine is that we need to prepare for any pandemic. we need to prepare for the next one, and maybe the next one is H7N2, and H5N1 never happens, or it takes another 10 years.

we don't know. That really is true. we don't. But as clark notes below, better to be prepared than not, and better to plan in advance than not at all.

But nothing could be further from the truth,

I don't think what he said was a misquote, because he went on to say...  Pandemic Influenza had it's day in the sun, everyone was talking about it in the grocery lines, and so on, and now it is old news.  I disagree with that as well.  No one and I mean NO ONE I speak with knew anything about pandemic influenza where I live (DC area) 2 years ago.  They heard about Bird Flu but not that it could affect them.  They did not know anything about pandemic influenza then and they barely know anything now.  I shop in a lot of grocery stores and we weren't talking about it in the stores or at the soccer meets or anywhere else.

So right now, with all that's going on -- and I do not believe a pandemic H5N1 is inevitable, but I do believe there are a lot of signs that it is moving that way, and towards a very fatal strain spreading rapidly -- right now is the last time you need anyone saying, "you should put this on your back burner" if you are an average person.

We need the average person getting involved, politically if need be, because the task of preparing our entire country for any pandemic will take several years, if our goal is not just to have some people survive, but to have the bare minimum number of deaths, and to have deaths only due to influenza, not due to lack of medication for other treatable conditions.  We need to start now, it needs to be on the FRONT burner.

It is fine to say, I don't think pandemic influenza is going to happen in the next few years.  I would be thrilled if someone could tell me that, and give me a good reason why it wouldn't happen.  (No one says that, they say "I don't know" which is different, isn't it.)

But that's not what Sandman said.  He said the average American isn't thinking about pandmeic, and that is as it SHOULD BE.  This had it's day in the sun, everyone talked about it, and now it is the new normal.  (But it isn't, and no one did anything about it to prepare themselves.)  And businesses should be concerned but individuals should not. 

I believe that is not a good message for anyone to be sending. The message he could have sent was this one:  "Pandemic Influenza is something every American needs to understand and prepare themselves for; and then ,once they've done all they can reasonably do, stay aware and pay attention and help others prepare and make sure businesses, local officials, schools and health officials are preparing for.  And utility companies.  Be alert, pay attention, and follow the news.  We don't know when and we don't know how bad, but we must prepare for the worst."

GetPandemicReady.org - non commerical website with practical ways for families to prepare.

http://www.fluwikie2...

Many signs that TPTB are scared sh**less, and this statement by Sandman may be an effort to 'prevent panic' that might be triggered by simultaneous announcements by the CDC and the WHO on February 1.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.

The focus is on vaccine because a working vaccine is the "power tool in the toolbox". if that is not available, then comes NPI and whatever antiviral we have.

There are money issues, federalism vs state issues, IT issues, supply chain issues, socual issues raised by closing schools, etc. Despite the above, there are the outlines of a plan, which now has to be vetted, brought and implemente dlocally, corrected where flawed (and there may indeed be flaws), etc.

This is a messy, non-simple-to-fix issue.

I know there is a risk of an influenza pandemic at some point and so I'm getting prepared, as best I can.  No risk communicator had to explain it to me. Just as no risk communicator has to tell me there is a risk of a car accident, damaging weather event, unexpected death, etc. Yet, amazingly,  I'm able to figure it out and plan accordingly. So, ummm, just what is it exactly all those big companies and organizations, run by highly-educated minds, need a risk communicator for?

We're all being managed and manipulated on the pandemic issue (and many others) every day by governments, organizations and individuals (some of whom might surprise you) in many ways, on many levels. Gotta keep that economy humming along smoothly, for one thing.

As Homesteader said on another forum, BEWARE and Be Aware! 

Since we all know spin reigns supreme, I'd rather have someone with a modicum of ethics (yes, I mean Sandman) educating big business on this than some low-life driveby flunky.

If you agree with the substance of what Sandman has to say on pandemic prep, then the fact that he pulls down big sums to advise companies with business practices that we may or may not agree with is, to me, irrelevant to the discussion of pandemic prep.

I probably won't read Sandman on pandemic prepping. I get my advice from the regular folks on the forums. Ya know, good old common sense. The "just git 'er done" aproach works for me.

I still believe we're being managed and manipulated, the full extent of which we may never know/understand. JMO

Of course everyone here has the best of intentions.  Its has been a very interesting discussion.

Virus were here billions of years before humanity, and will be here billions of years after us. Nuclear war and global warming would just be a bump in the road for them.

I think it is fine to overestimate the threat of pandemic flu. Engineers ALWAYS overestimate critical systems- they build 3 or 4 back ups- they overestimate loads by many hundreds of percent. That is how Nuclear reactors are built- Way overbuilt, with lots of redundancy.

The consequenc3s of underestimating a pandemic however, are horrendous.

It is like a dyke- If it is built 10 meters high, but the storm surge is 13 meters high, you could have saved yourself the effort and money- because the results will be the same as if nothing was done.

If we prepare for a 2% CFR pandemic, and a 15% pandemic arrives, the result will be as if we hadn't done a thing to prepare. A big waste of time and attention.

If we prepare for a 50% CFR and a 15% CFR arrives, then we will lick our wounds, consider ourselves lucky, and carry on a wiser species.

If governments divert their financial assistance from saving those same people towards pandemic preparedness, it would also make a difference.

Diverting resources has consequences. 

But that is assuming this a zero sum game. 

We can do more of both, but only if we are willing do less (or have less) of some other things.  For those living close to the edge now, that is already not an option, but for those who could afford it it becomes a choice, a decision about what is right.  So even though we can do both things, that does not mean that we will.

At some point diverting resources to pandemic preparation costs the lives it is meant to save.  Maybe not yours or ours, but lives non-the-less. We should not be anywhere near that point, but some will argue we are (some, not all, of whom would not support the assistance measures regardless.)

I advocate increases in both assistance and preparation - which sometimes can be the same thing (eg promoting stronger and more resilient public health resources here and abroad.)

But the reality of conflicting needs and values is still there. 

Remember, we knew the NO levies needed fixing.  But since it was not a certain threat, the support was lacking to spend the money - divert the resources - to address the contingent threat.  We lost that bet.  Now its 10 times or 100 times the cost.

At the same time, we know today that millions die every year around the world from diseases that have been essentially eradicated in most developed countries and lack of clean water/sufficient food that could be dealt with immediately if financial resources were made available.  Yet we decide to spend our money on other things.  We allocate our spending elsewhere, at times in a belief that what happens elsewhere will not affect what happens here. 

But to quote a favorite artist - "there is no more far away."

I do not envy the TPTB who in good faith are trying to strike the best balance between working on immediate known threats to health and safety and emerging contingent threats of potentially catastrophic impact.

But it is our choice as well.  If you don't like the choices that are being made, don't let this be the only place you voice that concern.  Make it known directly to those that represent you.  Democracy, its not just for election day anymore.
 

ITW(Joel J)
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
 

Not sure how food prepping is going to kill millions, but VERY sure how warfare prepping is going to kill millions. 

But what do I know.  I'm just a lowly peon office worker. :)

It is a simple risk/reward situation. Those who prep for a >10% CFR, and the pandemic doesn't happen, or is < 2% CFR, still get to live.  And they get to keep their houses homes stuffed full of discount food and solar generators.

Those who don't prep or prep for a 2% CFR- and a >5% CFR pandemic happens, lose their homes and their lives. The houses have no food or preps in them so are worthless anyway.
Plenty of ipods and empty, giant refrigerators however.

Do the maths. spend a few thousand dollars on supplies and have the possibility of saving my family's lives- or I buy a wide screen TV, which I possibly lose in post pandemic chaos.

I also understand why that argument is unpersuasive to non-engineers (and they outnumber us).  Example: "It is a simple risk/reward situation." No, it's not. There's nothing about this that's simple, including reaching some sort of consensus about what's important to focus on.

I would not ask an non-engineer to design a working artificial heart. I would not ask an engineer to explain what they've done, except to other engineers, or try and sell the thing.  ;-)

(1)Preps that costs nothing
It is really simple. Having >3 months of food in every home would save those households money over time, if they rotated the food- so rather than there being an overall cost to the greater community, there would be savings, even allowing for food spoilage.

(2) It is old school
If you are designing a critical component (lives depend on it) you ALWAYS go for "Old School"- the tried and true- not some hair brained "great idea" that was dreamed up by a 23 year old wizz kid, high on speed. It is verrry Koool, but will it work??? I hope so!

Quarantine, as a strategy, was figured out over a period of 320 years during incessant Black Death- (between 1347 and 1665.) It is like "the wheel", there is no point in reinventing it. It is a good and proven idea. Shelter In Place (SIP) for 40 days and 40 nights.

So what you have is a a proven, old school idea that costs nothing (even save people money) and works.

The ONLY problem is that no one can make billions of dollars implementing it. And no one can patent the idea and sell it. Universities can charge millions of $$$$$ to model it, that is good.

Tens of millions of our ancestors gave their lives figuring this out for us- it is hard won knowledge, freely given.

nothing is simple.

Now, that said, my feeling is that they can't afford NOT to stay home, but this is what the state has decided. Not only due to financial hardship on the parents, but also on the school districts who receive both state and federal funds based on student attendance. If the kids stay home, the school gets no money. If the school gets no money, the teachers don't get paid. If the teachers don't get paid, they can't pay their mortgages. If they can't pay their mortgages, they lose their homes. If they lose their homes, they have to go to a shelter. If they go to a shelter, they'll probably catch the flu. And so on and so forth...it's a vicious circle. And there is no easy fix for it...unfortunately, no matter what a few individuals say, it IS all about the money, whether it's employees or corporate entities...

We have all been dreaming- and we MAY be asked to wake up.

Close the schools at the very first hint of pandemic. Let us at least get one thing right. If we are going to be stupid, and unprepared, let us at least be honourable and try and protect our collective children as best we can.

What a pack of foolish bastards- money money money

Conclusion 5: In summary, the evidence suggests a role for community restrictions in reducing pandemic influenza virus transmission. The evidence does not allow for differentiating possible effects of specific types of community restrictions, nor does it allow differentiation between voluntary versus mandatory community restrictions. In general, evidence from modeling and from historical analyses confirm what is known for any infectious disease outbreak, that is, early intervention shows more promise than later intervention. The main effect might be to slow the time to peak of the outbreak in a community, which could be important for hospital-based management of ill patients and to allow for delivery of vaccine if available.

see bolded.

The virus came to the US quietly, with a series of small outbreaks over the summer of 1957. When US children went back to school in the fall, they spread the disease in classrooms and brought it home to their families. Infection rates were highest among school children, young adults, and pregnant women in October 1957. Most influenza-and pneumonia-related deaths occurred between September 1957 and March 1958. The elderly had the highest rates of death.

During the 1957-1958 pandemic, a WHO expert panel found that spread within some countries followed public gatherings, such as conferences and festivals.16 This panel also observed that in many countries the pandemic broke out first in camps, army units and schools; suggesting that the avoidance of crowding may be important in reducing the peak incidence of an epidemic.

During the first wave of the Asian influenza pandemic of 1957-1958, the highest attack rates were seen in school aged children. This has been attributed to their close contact in crowded settings. A published study found that during an influenza outbreak, school closures were associated with significant decreases in the incidence of viral respiratory diseases and health care utilization among children aged 6-12 years.

As I said before, there is never enough evidence.  So no one is actually wrong when they pick what they say, its a matter of not agreeing.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

Experts too need time to read long documents, you know. :-)

I mean, what will experts say after reading and thinking things through on their own?  Changing one's mind is not easy when one knows a lot - or so they say.  I personally have the feeling that my feet don't touch the ground when I sit at the elder's table, but then not everyone is just as eager to change their minds.

Let's breath while we can. ;-)

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

It would be much more cost effective in the long run.

I know I may be splitting hairs here- but for some people more than 3 months groceries is something that would never be possible- there simply is never enough money to pay for all of your basic means each month, never mind anything extra. I am thankful to not have been that strapped for cash for a very long time but I have been in that situation before and there are times when there truly is no choice.

That being said, if you can prep you definitely should to whatever your financial capability.

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little- Edmund Burke

It's a mental concoction that has nothing to do with objective reality.

Truth is truth, and untruth is untruth, depending on how much it adheres to or swerves from reality.  Humans of all stripes have biases, desires, blind spots, ulterior motives, motives in plain sight, etcetcetc that keep them from knowing the truth in full. 

People who are sincere in their desire to know the truth can often help each other discover truth.  But it has more to do with character than anything else. 

As it is said, the only thing in the middle of the road is road kill.

Oh, and 'wrong'

Just a thought.  ;-)



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

Aren't there parallels here with people just not able
to see the threat because the possibilities are
just inconceivable? Aren't people refusing to see
what is very apparent?

Many of you know Mr. Sandman's work better than I do.

While Mr. Sandman is usually hired to deactivate activists,
is there good evidence in his record to show that he also knows
how to help people overcome this normal psychological defense
mechanism that switches on in the face of ovewhelming threats?

Might his talents be used to help people see that this is a threat
for which they can,  and should, prepare?

Why has this diary been written? What is the issue that's being brought forward for discussion? Is it Sandman's career/record or it the comment in a news story?

If it's the former, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I suspect it's an opinion formed less on fact (i.e. do you know what was said to whom and when?) than i would prefer to speculate on. I say that because I don't know the answers (what was said in every circumstance and what what acted on and what was ignored), and I don't know how anyone else knows.

If it's the latter, I can tell you that the basic point was this: there are peaks and valleys of interest, and if the valley post-peak is higher than the valley pre-peak, you have made progess. That's what is meant by the 'new normal' and is not insulting or condescending. There was a great deal of praise for the online community througout the two day meeting by Mr. Sandman for achieving that 'new normal', so what is the issue, exactly, that you're trying to bring up? I do know his writings on pandemic flu and they're quite clear that it's a threat, and that teachable moments (the peaks) should be used to your communication advantage. That makes a great deal of sense.

Think of it this way: if your issue is endangered species, or rain forest depletion or global warming, and you don't know why more people don't get upset or into it the way you do, and see it the way you do, maybe there are better communication strategies. One of them is patience and tolerance for those that either disagree with you or, more importantly, aren't where you are yet. Remember where you started from, and try not to drag everyone through all the steps you went through in a hurry, if they are not ready. And don't yell at people who are not willing to join you in dragging that guy (who doesn't want to go) across the street.  ;-)

I think bringing up CFR questions and critiquing the plan is very valuable, and I applaud it. I am not certain this falls in the same category. I don't see where Mr. Sandman is usung his powers for evil instead of good, and that's about the level of the debate here.

* Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of History, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4

SUMMARY This article attempts to account for the paradox that Britain, with one of the most highly developed public health establishments of the period, mounted one of the least effective responses to the influenza epidemic of 1918-19. The episode is located in the context of the Great War, the evolution of the medical profession, and official public health policy. Motivated primarily by concern for their recently-acquired status, medical professionals and public health administrators deprecated the virulence of the epidemic and counselled the public to ignore its ravages. Only at the local level of administration, and at the initiative of lay members of public health committees, was there pragmatic attention to the acute social problems created by the epidemic. Faced with institutional obstacles and scarce resources, these efforts had little real impact but in their underlying assumptions were the only effective response to influenza in Britain in 1918-19, with health professionals playing a passive, or even obstructionist, role. The deficiencies of Britain's epidemic policy are accountable not in spite of, but because of a well-established and self-consciously scientific medical profession and public health establishment.

What on earth makes you think you know that?

Can you cite any primary source -- or only what other people have said about him? People who clearly have not read anything that he has written about corporations or government agencies?

Do you personally know of even ONE situation for which he was hired "to deactivate activists?"

Have you ever talked to him?

Have you ever read articles actually written by him? Which of his actual statements (as opposed to paraphrases and probably  misquoted news quotes) do you think are so horrible that you keep pulling at this scab of yours?

IF the Wiki is promoting keeping the schools open- then we have been deactivated!

when I have been spending a good part of the last 3 months saying 'school closure' even in my sleep??

We have always maintained the FW does not have a consensus position, and we still stand by that.

However, it is an insult to even read what you have written, when I myself, the only FW editor who has gone public in policy circles until this past month, have been so actively involved in publicizing and advocating school closure.

Did you know I went head-to-head against DA Henderson in Atlanta, the scion of containing epidemics from his renowned work on eradicating smallpox, cos I do not subscribe to his 'let's be careful not to wreck society by closing schools' paradigm?  Even before that, read my submissions to the Insitute of Medicine on October 25th 2006 here http://www.newfluwik... (half way down the page, in box with purple title anon_22's submissions to the IOM committee

You are entitled to your opinions, but be careful where you go with your insinuations and half-truths and un-truths.  They will not be tolerated here!

Look who is spinning here...!



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

"it's freely given but not freely accepted. We still have work to do there. Look, take school closure. few know more about 1918 than john barry, but he's not sold.

nothing is simple.

by: DemFromCT @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 15:18:54 PM CHADT"

He was pretty clear where he stood, and that was in opposition to the idea that these things work.  It wasn't even just something he mentioned in passing.  He devoted I would say a good 5-10 minutes to it.

Talk about 'mixed messages' that the audience is getting.

Needless to say, many unhappy faces among some of the CDC/HHS people present...

Hey, you know what, even John Barry is entitled to his opinion.  But it shows what I mean when I repeatedly say, there's still a lot to do, and it;s not a done deal.

The opposition is very much alive and kicking...



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

As is seen in the Interim Guidance and in discussions here and elsewhere, there are serious unaswered questions about how to make sure the intended effect of school closing will actually be achieved. We need to address those issues and discuss the trigger point for such closures to be effective. You can spend time talking about the folks that disagree or you can spend time talking about (and working towards) how and when to implement these steps in your area.

School closure is a mitigation measure with some similarities to voluntary home sequestration.  It calls for well people with no known exposure to the virus to practice what amounts to aggressive social distancing that limits or eliminates personal contacts that could lead to transmisison of a pandemic flu virus. 

There is little or no official discussion of voluntary home sequestration (other than the related concept of well family members in the household of an infected person.)  There are only vague refernces to "you may be asked to stay home for a period of time" or "there may be 'snow days'" and "some non-essential businesses may be asked to close or may close due to supply or other business disruptions". 

While these are not exact quotes, you can find the ideas scattered throughout many preparedness plans and guidances.  Many of the same issues that will flow from closing schools will also flow from closure of businesses - whether driven by market forces or government edict.

Talking about the effects of these closures and how we mitigate the downstream impacts are the second level discussions we must have now, when heads are clear and there is still time to take appropriate action.

Whether Sandman or Barry say things I don't agree with will not change my view that both have contributed (and continue to contribute) greatly to public awareness and understanding.  The media generated concept of 'all or nothing' when it comes to approval of prominent individuals is unnatural and leads to an insidious gridlock of thought, public discussion and action.

Works that way here too.

ITW(Joel J)
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
 

Or inaction.

This is what I see on flu boards every day. Seeking perfection, and not moving forward. Talk about deer freezing in the headlights. We humans have the same instincts.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.

My response to that is if we are talking about whether there is evidence to explain anything, at least we have the data about St Louis closing schools and cancelling mass gatherings, but we have zero evidence that there was a milder strain circulating in St Louis.

Like I said, Barry is entitled to his opinion, I just thought it was a bit premature to say "there is no evidence that these things work", since a fair bit of major research based on newly uncovered data and a more systematic analysis of news reports of 44 US cities is in the pipeline, ready to be published any time soon.

I am recounting this here since this thread is about spin, and where you draw the line between private opinion, opinion arising from evidence-based scholarly research, and opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing others.  The more famous the communicator, the greater the ethical responsibility in conveying accurate information, and separating information from opinion from advice. 



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

IOM Workshop Modeling Community Containment for Pandemic Influenza

Targeted Layered Containment (TLC)

Who Will Speak for the People

Reporting from the CDC Community Mitigation Meeting Dec 11-12 Atlanta #1

We Need to Tell the Parents



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...