Pandemic Preparedness needs to be approached differently than a typical disaster; even a global one.
Influenza preparedness is different from other types of emergency or disaster planning and preparedness because it requires us to fortify and protect an entire system, not just a project or a task.
These words have special meanings in the disciplines of systems engineering or systems theory or computer software development. In our everyday world the distinctions are profound as well in the way we address disasters.
Basically, a “task” is a defined set of actions necessary and sufficient to achieve a defined, limited objective. A set of tasks form a project, which also is intended to achieve an objective, but is broader in scope and in the resources needed for accomplishment. In essence, these terms both define activities organized to achieve ends and are distinguished by their scope and complexity. One conception is to say that tasks are bundled into projects that are bundled into programs that are the building blocks of a system. That system, to function, must have each and every part necessary to make it work do its individual work at the right time, in a way that supports every other part; that state of affairs is called “integration.”
Preparedness planning for an earthquake, a fire, a flood, and a snowstorm necessitate actions that deal with a societal disruption that is limited in time and geographic scope. The larger society, like the human body’s immune system, marshals resources that it feeds to the part that has been disrupted, to control damage and to repair it, so that it can re-enter the larger system as a functioning part again. But preparedness for an influenza pandemic recognizes that the “disruption” can be on a scale so massive that the larger system is itself disrupted and hampered if not incapacitated from sending effective assistance to localized parts of the system. For example, a community hit by a flood receives help from city, county, state and national entities. In a pandemic, these entities themselves could likely be disrupted by 25 to 40% absenteeism in every business, government and health care organization, by surging needs for health care services and supplies that outstrip our capacity everywhere, by the disruption for weeks of the supply services that provide water, food, heat, light, and transportation. In short our overall method for “getting the basics” is threatened to be broken down and pushed back to a more primitive state, one that requires us to fend for ourselves, like wilderness survivalists, rather than relying on the basic life sustaining methods that we can easily take for granted.
So, as we add up what we must address to be prepared to face the implications of a pandemic, we realize that the size and scope of the task is enormous; it is system-wide, national, even global. And our preparations must be integrated and comprehensive, that is, the planning of what to do with the parts (such as keeping electricity running or the food supply coming) requires us to address all the other parts (like health care and transportation and global trade --- because much of what we use is produced abroad --- at the same time.
An apt though dire analogy might be a ship at sea which at the same time quickly loses power, develops multiple large leaks, is faced by an oncoming storm and an attack by pirates, while the crew is suffering from widespread debilitating and life threatening infectious disease, while their communication links are not working. There is nowhere to turn for help. The crew has to find a way to deal with all these problems at once and self-reliantly.
It is this requirement for us during a pandemic to deal with the whole system that supports our modern lives that makes it so challenging and difficult and distinguishes it from other disasters with which we must cope. We must utilize our resources and our learning from more limited disruptions to avoid “system failure” at a large scale.
