The exercise will look at a number of factors including how firms could cope with a greatly reduced workforce.

I'd be much more interested in an exercise which looked at how the civil service and other arms of the government could cope with a greatly reduced workforce.

Tim, absolutely! Remember when the US government was temporarily "closed" during the budget ruckus between the White House and Congress in the mid-90s? What was hilarious was that no-one noticed.

This is a good idea in that any organisation should plan for such disruption, but why is avian flu the hook for it? I have prepared contingency plans in case my staff all win the lottery and walk out on Monday, in case the local station is closed by an accident or terrorist action, and the normal threats to any office of fire, flood and pestilence (I have had a workplace closed due to Legionella in the past).

Any of these are more likely than avian flu being passed to humans in significant numbers, mutating in those victims to become communicable between humans, proving so contagious as to become a pandemic, AND keeping a significant proportion of the population off work for a sufficiently long period to cause problems. There are four clauses in this, so it won't happen (unless there is a major sporting event on at the time).

MarkE - the 'flu pandemic in 1918-19 killed more people than WW1 and probably because those same things came about so I wouldn't be so sure.

MarkE,

I thought you were joking about the lottery. I just saw on the news this noon, 100 employees of the Sargento cheese factory split the lottery prize and are each getting approximately $700,000 each. Probably about 15 to 20 years income. How would you like to have that factory's production obligations?

Maybe they just choose bird flu because it's most likely to get participation without saying the 'T' word.

From the link provided by Ian: " The therapeutic remedies for influenza patients varied from the newly developed drugs to oils and herbs. The therapy was much less scientific than the diagnostics , as the drugs had no clear explanatory theory of action."

Might not things have improved a bit since then?

Also, if there is a very serious risk, surely government-led vaccination would be appropriate, for pretty much the whole population.

From my experieince over the last few years, the UK cannot reliably obtain enough vaccine for the modest proportion of the population that is currently vaccinated according to government health policy (plus those like me who wish to have it done privately, if only we are fortunate enough to obtain any vaccine).

Would it be right to seek, as a higher or equal priority, facilities to provide vaccine in larger quantities, in a timescale appropriate to meet the needs of the winter period sufficiently fast after the point at which there is determination of the main viral threats applicable? That is, always assuming that there is a predicable threat of sufficient seriousness.

Perhaps Dr Crippen could comment on whether my above thoughts are pertinent, from his much more informed position.

Best regards

I agree with Ian about the effects of the 1918 flu pandemic, which may be why I am unsypathetic to staff returning after two days off with "flu", but the world had just suffered four years of war. The physical (and mental) effects of that will have made populations more susceptable ( why do I insuist on using words I can't spell?) to infection. The killer argument however; the government and the BBC both insist it is a very real threat to us. Proof therefore that we are all perfectly safe!

Are there any others like me who sometimes look back at old posts, or will this be ignored?