Anthrax attack could kill 123,000

BBC NEWS ^ | March 18, 2003 | Unsigned

[aculeus]

An anthrax weapon aimed at a major city could kill at least 123,000 people even if every victim received treatment, experts have calculated.

US researchers have used a computer model to predict the devastation that would result from the launch of an anthrax bomb or missile on a city the size of New York.

The figures are based on what would happen if a bomb containing 1 kilogram of anthrax spores was dropped on a city of 10 million inhabitants.

The projected number of fatalities is based on the assumption that antibiotics would not be administered for 48 hours until the first symptoms appeared.

If it proved possible to distribute drugs more quickly, then the death toll could be substantiallly reduced.

However, they warn that inadequacies in the current US emergency response plan may make such a rapid response unlikely.

Lead researcher Dr Lawrence Wein, from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, California, said: "The first people develop symptoms within two days of exposure, and many more would develop symptoms over the next week.

"Our response needs to be measured in hours, not in days or weeks."

Intensive care

Five of the 11 people who inhaled anthrax during the 2001 attacks on the US postal system died despite intensive treatment by large teams of doctors.

The researchers recommend distributing anti-anthrax antibiotics such as Cipro in advance of any major attack.

If this was not possible, then the aim should be to distribute antibiotics to everyone infected within 12 hours.

In the case of an attack on New York City, that would mean supplying the drugs to 1.5 million people.

The only way to do this would be to increase the number of available health professionals dramatically.

The researchers estimate that to keep the death toll down to about 1,000, one health professional would be required for every 700 people in the affected population.

This could only be achieved by training non-emergency medical staff and making maximum use of military personnel and volunteers.

The research is published in the journal Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published: 2003/03/18 01:34:26

© BBC MMIII

[error99]

Just in the first little bit of the story we have this:
- - -
"An anthrax weapon aimed at a major city could kill at least 123,000 people even if every victim received treatment, experts have calculated.

US researchers have used a computer model to predict the devastation that would result from the launch of an anthrax bomb or missile on a city the size of New York.

The figures are based on what would happen if a bomb containing 1 kilogram of anthrax spores was dropped on a city of 10 million inhabitants.

The projected number of fatalities is based on the assumption that antibiotics would not be administered for 48 hours until the first symptoms appeared.

If it proved possible to distribute drugs more quickly, then the death toll could be substantiallly reduced."
- - -
Not very FACTUAL, now, is it????
(NEARLY everyone COULD POSSIBLY NEARLY slip on a banana peel at APPROXIMATELY noon tomorrow, IF...)

[ClearCase_guy]

123,000 seems like a curious number. Is it rounded? Was the precise number 123,456?

[The Great Satan]

I sure hope Bush knows what he's doing. Historically, the United States has underestimated Saddam's powers of survival time and again. Bush played his hand today. Better hope all Saddam is holding is a busted flush.

[FairOpinion]

Another article about the same study:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=585&e=1&cid=585&u=/nm/20030318/sc_nm/health_anthrax_dc

"Last summer, both men, experts in modeling epidemics, issued a report saying mass vaccination would save thousands more lives in a smallpox attack."

[The Great Satan]

Wanna try the experiment?

[BenLurkin]

Maybe some of our FReeper experts could chime in on this, but I always heard that CBW weapons are inefficient unless used under very ideal circumstances.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Well, if an Iraqi janitor decides to toss a jar of the stuff off the roof of the Bank of America building in San Francisco on Day One of the war, I'll probably be dead ten days later.

On the plus side, a whole lot of unwashed anti-war protesters will be going down with me...

[bobi]

YES you see THAT where you SHOULD BE SEEING THIS:

An anthrax weapon aimed at a major city could kill at least 123,000 people even if every victim received treatment, experts have calculated.

US researchers have used a computer model to predict the devastation that would result from the launch of an anthrax bomb or missile on a city the size of New York.

The figures are based on what would happen if a bomb containing 1 kilogram of anthrax spores was dropped on a city of 10 million inhabitants.

The projected number of fatalities is based on the assumption that antibiotics would not be administered for 48 hours until the first symptoms appeared.

If it proved possible to distribute drugs more quickly, then the death toll could be substantiallly reduced."

Stop confusing the issues. Just remember a car has an engine and the engine runs on oil.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Doctors don't want to give prescriptions for cipro and there has been a crackdown on online pharmacy distribution from what I understand.

This seems to me to be a serious problem in that people haven't been allowed to prepare to defend themselves by having it available.

[FairOpinion]

Depends what you mean by "Inefficient".

They are inefficient in military situations, but quite effective as terror weapons.

So they "only" kill 10% of the people, that could be called inefficient, but when thousands start to die in a city, you can imagine the impact.

[steve86]

There has been a crackdown on online pharmacy distribution from what I understand.

I heard the same thing but my prescriptions from Mexico, Europe, and Asia come through with no problem. Can't afford them otherwise. Just make sure you have a physical prescription in case U.S. Customs delivers your order...

[FairOpinion]

"This seems to me to be a serious problem in that people haven't been allowed to prepare to defend themselves by having it available"

----

I totally agree. The same thing with the smallpox vaccines. We have enough, yet they have not made it available to people to take them, if they decide to do so.

They should allow people to stock up on Cipro and other antibiotics, anti-toxins, get vaccines that are available.

[TBall]

Hope that there is no 7, 8, 9. Tons

[Jorge]

Not very FACTUAL, now, is it????

What did you expect? An accurate account of a REAL anthrax attack on New York?

[error99]

Well, first of all,
I've got a great big sackful of dioxycycline.
Thats plenty more than enough for me and my family.
And close family has established rendezvous points.
I ain't no sheep, my personal security is independent
on some news flash coming from FoxNews or Washington D.C..

You realize of course that we are likely in for a whole new round of the white powder from sugar do-nuts causing great panic amoung the sheeple weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and the closing of schools, airports and shopping malls.

Hey Everybody !
Are you prepared?
Whadda you waitin for?
Are you waiting for government to "take care" of you?
Are yo waiting for Homeland Defense to announce that you
need to go buy some duct tape, toilet paper, and flashlight batteries?