The Collapse, [Altered States] Consequences of the VITAS Pandemic Options

[apieros]

Altered States is my alt-history Shadowrun campaign, still being written. This thread discusses The Collapse, the immediate consequences of the alt-VITAS pandemic (first discussed here).This is the first of two posts on this subject, I'll add the second later in the thread, hopefully sometime tomorrow.

The Collapse: Consequences of the VITAS Pandemic

The Collapse began with VITAS, the pandemic that killed 40% of the globe, 2.6 billion people. It caused wars, famine, and secondary epidemics. It spawned chaos.

These side effects of VITAS, while not as immediately lethal as the disease itself, killed an additional 10+ million people in the US, and 100-150 million worldwide. They had consequences that lingered on long after the disease sputtered out.

For all the shock and tumult caused by the Awakening, the effects of VITAS were more profound and more transfiguring. They broke apart countries, vaporized the economic system, and rewrote common assumptions about the relationship between government, industry, and private citizens. Even the emergence of orcs, dragons, and astral spirits didn’t provoke such epochal consequences.

Medical

The first casualty was the medical community, on the front lines of the epidemic. Health services, governmental and private, were overwhelmed by a combination of casualties, demand, and the breakdown of public order. As circumstances deteriorated, it became impossible to get treatment for any medical condition. Travel restrictions limited the amount of medicines available, and pharmacies soon ran out.

As a result, at the same time VITAS was killing people left and right, people were also dying of untreated conditions that would, at any other time, have been survivable. Secondary outbreaks (such as the flu or cholera) became common, and killed millions.

> VITAS is old news now, on the medical front. It happened 23 years ago, and though we still don’t have accurate models of how it worked on a cellular level, we know what it did. But during the first days of the pandemic, it was a complete unknown. No one knew how infectious it was, how it killed, or what prophylaxis might work. It was a mystery killer.

The doctors, nurses, and EMT’s who stayed on the job, treating patients without pay, were real heroes. Especially those who lived in and around breakdown zones, where violence against medical personnel was a real and present threat. A lot of my friends and classmates were killed while trying to help.

Also heroes were the army units that risked their lives to move medicine and other supplies into disputed zones. There was little to spare, but they gave away their own medical supplies more often than one would think.
- Broke-Down Back-Country Doc

Economic

The second casualty was trade. Trade depends on drivers, seamen, and dockworkers. It depends on factory workers, farmers, and craftsmen. On researchers, engineers, and designers. On salesmen, managers, bankers. All of these died en masse, with consequences for their companies and the rest of the economy.

Travel restrictions were put into place, cutting one country off from another. This halted the flow of infected individuals, but also prevented trade. Via ship, airplane, truck, or train, international trade was interdicted completely.

Oil in the Middle East could no longer be shipped to other countries, such as China (the largest consumer of Middle Eastern oil). China itself could no longer manufacture electronics for the West, as components sat on the docks in Singapore or Korea. And, even if the items could be manufactured, they couldn’t be transported to other markets.

There were no exports, there were no imports. The global economy slowed, sputtered, then disintegrated. Factories were shut down, banks closed, corporations collapsed. Stock markets cratered, destroying the retirement plans of governments, companies, and private citizens, then closed.

Governments went bankrupt. Public debt payments were suspended, causing further chaos to the banking system. Public aid programs, such as Britain’s National Health Service or America’s Social Security, collapsed. Welfare payments ceased, unemployment benefits were cut off.

The tax base collapsed, and governments paid for supplies and manpower with fiat currency or simply seized them. Widespread use of fiat currency hypercharged inflation rates. Annual inflation rates climbed into three, four, or five digits.

People were thrown out of work, with no public aid, and remained unemployed for a long time.

> It’s hard for people to understand just how destructive and widespread the economic collapse was. To isolate one economic element, corporations: no multi-national companies survived the Collapse. Corporations that had been household names and economic powerhouses—Apple, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil—were swept away in the chaos and are now all but forgotten. Every single major corporation in existence today was founded post-Collapse.
- Lost Cause

> Founded, in most cases, after the Argentinean Model. Governments seized the property of defunct companies and sold them to qualified investors on a mortgage plan. The investors were to operate the companies and pay back the government the cost of their facilities out of their profits (usually in revalued currency, like the Japanese nuyen). The plan gave investors capital goods (like factories, raw materials, or land) and enough money to pay workers for about a year. This created jobs, allowed unused capital assets to be put into production, and created income for the government. This solution pleased no one, right-wingers considered it Socialism, left-wingers Corporate Welfare, but it worked well enough to restart the (legitimate) economy.
- PoliSci Perpetrator

Internal trade was also hampered, sometimes by quarantines, sometimes by civil strife. Goods couldn’t reach markets, including consumer goods, medicines, and food. People fell back on what they had on hand, or what could be acquired from black market sources.

Those who had local supplies were safe. Those who didn’t, starved. Even emergency supplies, often distributed by the military, weren’t enough in many areas. Famine killed between 2 and 5 million, in the US alone.

(continued...)

[kzt]

40% direct death rate based on a 55% mortality rate means that your are assuming that 75% of the world population caught the virus. That compares to the 1918 influenza pandemic which had a 27% infection rate and a 10-20% death rate. Essentially everyone in most countries must be infected to have those rates. Given that the virus remains active for a significant period as opposed to rapidly burning out the effects are going to be much more severe than you postulate. Pretty much no human interaction outside the family will occur except in really critical organizations, like the military, for a while. But they too will collapse with a 55% death rate.

Given that I think your postulated death rates are grossly out of synch with the death rate and infectiousness you postulate from VITAS. A typical city has about 4 days of food in stores, plus another 2-5 days in storage at people houses. If you shut down trucking for a month EVERY major US city starves. This is roughly similar in the 1st and second world, though they might have a few more or less days of food available. For example, Mexico City has 37 million people and a notoriously ineffectual government at the best of times, how many of them can find food after a month? Pretty much nobody.

Without internal transport and international trade the power grid fails in at most weeks to months. If the power grid fails the water system in most the the world fails too. Then winter comes and people freeze to death.

Essentially, instead of the 2-5 million dead of starvation, I'd expect that the you'd see about 2-5+ BILLION dead from second order effects.

You'd kill off at least 80% of the population, with nearly 100% death rates in some areas. Oh, and people confined to prisons etc are going to die at the nearly 100% rate.

[Stahlseele]

Grimdork.

[apieros]

Grimdork.

?

[apieros]

40% direct death rate based on a 55% mortality rate means that your are assuming that 75% of the world population caught the virus. Essentially everyone in most countries must be infected to have those rates.

The vast majority of people were exposed, but only 75% were infected (that is, caught the virus). Of those, roughly 55% developed severe symptoms and died (over the course of about 6-9 months, depending on location).

Given that the virus remains active for a significant period as opposed to rapidly burning out the effects are going to be much more severe than you postulate.

I'm not an epidemiologist, but from the information I've gathered the traditional figure for pre-industrial, non-democratic, low-cohesion societies is roughly 20%. Historically, things fall apart when a society takes 20% casualties from... whatever.

Arguments have been made that the situation is different for industrial, democratic, high-cohesion societies. Such societies are more resilient. Depending on the type of disease, they could hang on through a plague that causes (according to one source) up to 60% casualties. All of this is speculative, as no such society has ever suffered through a pandemic of that severity.

For the purposes of the background of Altered States, I'm assuming that the 35% casualty figure for the US is survivable. That is, even though widespread death wreaks havoc, such a society can barely survive and claw back from the brink.

This could be completely wrong. But it's an assumption I'm comfortable with making.

(And, if it is wrong then there's as big a problem with canon Shadowrun, which hits 25%. Bad bad things should have happened, but largely didn't.)

If you shut down trucking for a month EVERY major US city starves.

First, the admission: The number of deaths I gave for starvation is ridiculously, embarrassingly low. You're more than correct on that score.

(In the back of my mind, I was thinking of the US figure, not international. I know I wrote "worldwide". To that, I can only plead Brain Fart.)

But, regarding the amount of supplies on hand in an American urban area, the figure I saw quoted—from SM Stirling, a sci fi author—is about 1 month, 2 with rationing. That may not be 100% correct, but the timeline I built allows for something in that ballpark.

My current timeline (roughly similar to the canon):

August, 2010: VITAS begins in India.
October, 2010: VITAS reaches America.
November, 2010: The Collapse begins. Martial law declared in the US. US forces recalled. Posse Comitatus is suspended.
December, 2010: Military moves to secure and man critical operating infrastructure, including power grids and oil refineries. Populations of cities plummet as people ex-migrate. Many starve or freeze.
January, 2010: Military becomes the unofficial trade network and aid source for much of the country.
February, 2011: Military aid network becomes official. The army becomes the primary source of order and aid for most rural areas and some urban areas.
March, 2011: VITAS burns out in the US.
May, 2011: US famines.
June, 2011: Order restored to all rural areas, and several urban areas.
September, 2011: Order restored to all but the largest cities.

Okay. The assumption is that by the time the 2010 harvest is underway, the situation across the globe is deteriorating. Most began hoarding food in late summer. The harvest goes through, and though prices are high, people still stock up.

The Collapse, in the US, occurs during winter. External trade is interdicted, but internal trade is allowed. It sputters on for a while, until trucking companies go bankrupt. By late winter, food supplies have run out in the major cities (earlier for the less-prepared). People begin to flee the cities.

The military, in its efforts to keep its soldiers fed and trucks fueled, establishes supply points in areas that can supply those needs, such as Texas and Kansas. It begins shipping fuel and food around to units that need it, "paying" for fuel with the USDA/OEM food reserves. Shortly after unofficial aid drops, usually of food and medical supplies, begin.

The military seizes (er..."reinforces") some critical infrastructure to allow it to function in a bare-bones manner. It pays civilians to operate power plants, oil refineries, and other critical installations with vouchers for food, fuel, or power.

In February, the Community Aid program begins, and the US Military begins officially distributing aid goods. Eventually, fuel, power, and food ration coupons are printed up and become a defacto currency.

With the above background, a figure of 2-5 million is possible, in the US alone.

the power grid fails in at most weeks to months. the water system...fails

I talk about the power grid in Part II, "Infrastructure". (Hopefully tomorrow.)

Then winter comes and people freeze to death.

Depends on where you are. Not just climate, but seasons. (The southern hemisphere basically dodges winter during VITAS.) And fuel sources used. Coal, wood, peat, etc. Again, rural areas are much better off in this regard.

I'd expect that the you'd see about 2-5+ BILLION dead from second order effects.

I'll disagree with that. If people were helpless, sure. But most aren't.

People have a way of clinging on and surviving, even in astoundingly horrific circumstances. They come up with solutions that are bizarre, but which work.

As an example, a bizarre solution to the heat problem: town bundling. (As seen in Fallen Angels, by Niven and Pournelle.) Bunch of people huddling together through a long winter, sharing heat to survive. Difficult, unpleasant, but it works.

Difficult and unpleasant, but creative solutions are the norm for humans. When pressed, they are far more inventive than anyone could predict.

For the purposes of Altered States, I'm pegging secondary deaths at no more than 100-150 million all told, worldwide. (I actually mean "worldwide", this time.)

I do appreciate your comments, kzt, you pointed out a couple of obvious errors and several not-so-obvious mistakes. I'll fix those in the next draft.

Thanks for reading and replying.

[kzt]

People have a way of clinging on and surviving, even in astoundingly horrific circumstances. They come up with solutions that are bizarre, but which work.

As an example, a bizarre solution to the heat problem: town bundling. (As seen in Fallen Angels, by Niven and Pournelle.) Bunch of people huddling together through a long winter, sharing heat to survive. Difficult, unpleasant, but it works.

Combined with a pandemic that has a crazy high mortality rate? Nope, won't happen. Nobody will work with anyone else, they won't even allow them to approach. And they are absolutely correct.

And the military will break down with that kind of crazy morality level. Because it isn't just the military personnel dying, it's their families. So a lot of them will say screw it and run for the hills with their families after reports start coming in as to how bad it is, at least if they are not killed in the first wave. And nobody will be in a position to chase them or even figure out what happened, whether they died, deserted, are in a hospital or just vanished or got killed in the total collapse of order.

The examples of the 1918 influenza epidemic breakout at Camp Grant or Camp Devens in Barry's "The Great Influenza" are instructive, particularly as that was both far less infectious and far less lethal then VITAS. Camp Devens had a base hospital with a capacity of 1250, and on Sept 6th it had 84 patients. On Sept 22nd the hospital had over 6500 patients, with virtually no medical staff tending them because they were all also desperately ill, with a hundred men dying every day and That was with a roughly 3% mortality rate.

You are talking black death level fatalities. However the societies struck by the black death were largely agrarian. Cities were indeed depopulated, but the percentage of people who lived in cities was fairly low. The vast majority made a living by farming, so had fairly direct access to food. That most certainly isn't the case anymore. At least 50% of the world population lives in urban areas, and in the developed counties it is far higher then that. These will NOT do well.

Modern societies are far less resilient than a largely subsistence agricultural society, not more. A 13th century subsistence farmer can continue to run his farm to a large extent even if the society falls apart. There are a lot of highly specialized trades that keep a modern society running and they require a lot of interaction with each other.

And while you can probably train a PFC to drive a semi (to some level of "train") I really doubt you can train a PFC to run an oil refinery or the Eastern Interconnection in two weeks.

[Manunancy]

On the oil angle, things are somewhat alleviated (at least for crude oil) by the heavy automation already present in teh industry - all you need is a few specialists in the control room, some guys to hook the pipes to the tanker and maintenance rew for all that.

So you can run things without direct interaction between the loading crew and the tanker's crew and tinker with the work schedules to lower human interaction to a very low level.

Of course, if the specialists die you're hosed, but you can probably operate the installations at a low pitch without too much trouble. The economic turndown and reduction on the demand side will help there too.

[Serbitar]

Very interesting discussion. Keep on going.

[DMiller]

Just a quick note on food supplies in cities. As the city depopulates the food supply becomes (effectively) more abundant as the amount of food changes little and the demand on it becomes less.

Just food for thought. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

-D

[apieros]

Modern societies are far less resilient than a largely subsistence agricultural society, not more. A 13th century subsistence farmer can continue to run his farm to a large extent even if the society falls apart. There are a lot of highly specialized trades that keep a modern society running and they require a lot of interaction with each other.

You're talking about two different things:

1.) Technological and manufacturing base
and
2.) Social cohesion

These are not the same thing. I agree that specialized training cannot quickly be gained (by an individual), nor can those workers be quickly or easily replaced. Above and beyond people just dying, skilled workers (some of which I enumerated) are required and in their absence (or the absence of international trade) whole industries will collapse. Which was the entire point of the "Economic" section of the Collapse.

Social cohesion—the willingness of people to work together before, during, and after the plague has passed—is an entirely separate matter. That has no relation to agrarian or no, specialized training or no.

It depends on several factors. And modern societies, that is nation-states, are far more resilient than any traditional society. The existence of the Nation and the State cause and are caused by this resilience. Where communal (or national) identity is strong, and social trust high (and the US is among the highest social trust societies in history), society can re-cohere, or self organize even after severe disruptions. People, on their own initiative, self-organize in ways the government cannot.

Your thesis is:

Nope, won't happen. Nobody will work with anyone else,

Before, during, and after the epidemic? No one?

Boiled down, you're claiming: "A pandemic with 35% casualties will cause social cohesion to utterly and completely disappear and it is utterly impossible for it to ever reform."

I disagree. And I've seen cogent arguments that support (and indeed prompted) my claim.

Before the epidemic, there's a tiny percentage of paranoiacs and survivalists that will withdraw. In terms of a 310 mil populace, they're insignificant.

During? The entire point of the writeup is to detail how this breakdown happens. For various reasons, the pandemic causes a lot of essential aspects of society to fall apart. But not absolutely everything, absolutely everywhere.

But after? The entire assumption of the setting is this: VITAS came. Social cohesion broke down. But people survived, and once it passed they began putting their lives back together.

Things aren't the same. But then, they never are.

Some countries disintegrated wholly, such as China and the EU. The US survived as an entity, but one with severely weakened central government. The armed forces, for example, moved back to a pre-Civil War model (raised by the state, with local volunteers, and supported by state taxes, unless called up for federal duty during wartime).

In many ways, the US returned to being a loose confederation, as under the Articles of Confederation. In the setting, each state is almost a separate country, with its own army and currency (necessary after the dollar hyper-inflated). I was referring to this when I talked about "rewrote common assumptions about the relationship between government, industry, and private citizens".

After the plague passes, high-cohesion societies can reform. And I think that makes for an interesting assumption to build the setting around.

It's at least as "realistic" as the Resource Rush and the Supreme Court declaring that business entities are sovereign nations. And, for that matter, is just as realistic as canon VITAS not causing an "Earth Abides" or "Mad Max" setting.

If canon Shadowrun can get away with skirting the examples you cite, why can't my alt-Shadowrun? Fair is fair, after all.

Nobody will work with anyone else,

Nobody? At all? Out of 310 million people? Not a single doctor will help his neighbors? Not a single squad, isolated far from any of their homes, will remain a unit? Not a single group of oil workers will remain at their posts, having brought their families into their compound? Not a single biker gang, having buried their dead, will stick together for survival?

Such a blanket declamation is, by its universal nature, incorrect. And boring. (Yes, i'm playing the "that's boring" card.)

But if that's true, it's true of canon Shadowrun and the same thing should have happened there.

And the military will break down with that kind of crazy morality level.

Or canon Shadowrun's 25%. And it does, to a large extent. Domestically, at least.

The situation is different for US units overseas, especially those operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Less so for those in Germany and other places.) The disease comes, hits the base, people die. Where are the survivors going to go? Saying "screw it" and running away with their families just isn't an option. They're surrounded by chaos and armed enemies so they... what?

Retrench. Reinforce. Call back all surviving units and dig in. Then, when the President authorizes an airlift, they return stateside.

All have been exposed. Those who will die, have died. But they're still cohesive units. Among the only cohesive units left. And the survivors are immune. So, they function in the manner previously described.

They begin to help those communities that have survived. They begin to protect critical infrastructure. They begin to form a communications network between those places with stable government. They ship food and fuel around, at first for their own needs, then for the needs of others.

VITAS is a fast-spreading, fast burning plague. (If necessary, I can make that more evident.) And once it's passed, the survivors can regroup.

Hell, even if you were right, and society totally collapsed, we'd be back to the "never-ending war of all against all". De facto warlords would emerge, some benevolent, some cruel. (See: "Dies the Fire", "Lucifer's Hammer", and many other novels, short stories, and movies.) They'd scavenge guns and fuel, equip a small army, and start consolidating territory. In fact, that's what I assume happens in most places.

But you are arguing that this simply cannot happen. That society will break down and cannot ever reform.

I disagree. Strongly.

Society will reform sooner or later, even if it totally evaporates. What emerges will be different—that's kind of the point—but it will re-emerge.

EDIT: I do disagree with you, but I appreciate the time you took to reply. Thank you for the feedback.

[Sengir]

December, 2010: Military moves to secure and man critical operating infrastructure, including power grids and oil refineries. Populations of cities plummet as people ex-migrate. Many starve or freeze.
January, 2010: Military becomes the unofficial trade network and aid source for much of the country.
February, 2011: Military aid network becomes official. The army becomes the primary source of order and aid for most rural areas and some urban areas.

The military would be one of the first organizations to fall apart. Lots of people living together 24/7 is a perfect breeding ground for infections even at normal times. If the military was deployed it would be even worse, the soldiers would be in direct contact with infection hotspots while subjected to cramped conditions, physical exhaustion and poor hygiene.

Also, what kzt said on subsistence farming. Even if the govt still maintains emergency food reserves (do they?), the reserves could feed a fraction of the population for ten days or so. After that...well, Europe at the end of WWII...

[apieros]

If the military was deployed it would be even worse, the soldiers would be in direct contact with infection hotspots while subjected to cramped conditions, physical exhaustion and poor hygiene.

I'm not talking about units "in the field", waging war against an active enemy. I'm talking about units that are on assignment in foreign countries, such as Japan, Germany, or Iraq. Conditions on military bases/naval ships are not cramped, with poor hygiene.

Even if the govt still maintains emergency food reserves (do they?)

The military does, a godawful amount. There's entire departments in the Pentagon tasked with keeping soldiers supplied long-term.

On the civilian side, there's the USDA administered Strategic Grain Reserves, which stored 25 million bushels of grain (varies year to year). US citizens consume about 2.5 bushels per year, so that's enough food for 10 million people for an entire year, or 120 million for one month. And if, as I stipulated, they had time to bulk up grain reserves during the harvest, it'd be even higher, maybe +10% to +20%.

And that's at the high rates of consumption in the 2000's. Indians, as in subcontinent not American, survive on 1/5th that. Which would make the supply "worth" x5, 50 million people for a year or 200 million people for 3 months.

Yes, folks, the government stores enough wheat to feed hundreds of millions of people for several months. You're going to be hungry, but the food stores exist.

Then there's similar programs for cheese, beef, and so forth. Plus the estimated personal storage I cited above. Plus the stocking-in-advance.

Plus there's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has (in Feb 2012) 696 million barrels of oil in storage, enough for 36 days of use for the entire country. Motorcycles, scooters, SUV's, personal yachts, single engine planes, every other single civilian vehicle in the entire country and, oh, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. At present day levels of use.

36 days, in reserve. More, if the population drops, travel is restricted, or the fuel is rationed. (SUV's? No. Firetrucks? Okay.) Even more, if the people in charge see VITAS chewing its way across Asia and get smart enough to stock up on oil before the plague hits LA or NY. (Which, in this continuity, they did.)

A pandemic would cause serious problems. But emergency planning is the focus of the federal, state, and local governments, as well as entire University departments and private companies (petroleum and agriculture companies, especially).

You may have read about zombie planning, where real-world government agencies have made emergency plans for a zombie apocalypse? It's not because they think it's likely, it's because planning for those kinds of extreme events are fun, and the plans can be applied to more mundane, but still extreme crises. They do this for a living.

"Society breaks down forever" and "everybody dies" are not absolutely guaranteed, even with 40% casualties. But let's say they are.

Then you can scale back the lethality to 30%, 25% (the canon), or 20% (the commonly accepted "survivable" casualty rate). If you choose to use this alternate VITAS, or alternate setting, just set the rate at whatever you personally feel is survivable.

For me, it's 40%. For other's, it's more or less. YMMV, in other words.

Cheers!

[Jeremiah Kraye]

I think the fallout series hits home pretty straight forward on what would actually happen. Even if you reduced people down to their base of instincts, they would still congregate together, disease or not. Only the most paranoid would "segregate themselves" from society, they also tend to be the ones that turn into cannibals and eat other humans that venture into their fringe areas.

Where as in fallout you have those you also have the "leaders" of new societies, good bad and ugly (survivor towns, bandits, and oddities (ghouls)).

I think the same is probably true of post VITAS world. Shit sucks, time to rebuild.

[Saint Sithney]

Also, SR 2010 was more technologically advanced than today's 2010 in terms of mechanized labor. (ala Robocop)
So, automation could have kept society on the rails better than we would expect today for the purposes of keeping essential resources coming into the cities.

You don't need to train a PFC to drive a train that drives itself and loads/unloads itself.

[apieros]

I think the same is probably true of post VITAS world. Shit sucks, time to rebuild.

That's pretty much my approach to the post-VITAS years (2011 to 2032).

Even if you reduced people down to their base of instincts, they would still congregate together, disease or not...you also have the "leaders" of new societies, good bad and ugly

I agree and, for the purposes of Altered States, assumed that this happens pretty much everywhere. This is where social cohesion comes in.

The higher the social cohesion, the more people see themselves as citizens of a country, the more likely they are to accept reintegration even when they don't have to. By and large, social cohesion was high in Commonwealth Nations, Western Europe, the United States, and a few other territories (like Thailand). It was low in most of the rest of the world, and very low in Africa (whose countries had always been political fictions masking deep tribal divisions).

In high cohesion countries, reunification or reclamation (as the US Military called it) succeeded in recreating or restoring a central government and vesting it with legitimacy. In other places, the countries Balkanized, or descended into chaos. (Strong leaders could and did forge disparate enclaves into a new polity, but many of these were less than stable—prone to collapse, rebellion, or being absorbed by more powerful neighbors.)

In the US, the military served as the main means by which the country was reunified. (To the extent it happened. The NAN movement resisted reclamation efforts until the Awakening, which allowed them to launch a war.) Even though the resulting country lacked a strong central government, enough people considered themselves Americans to allow a nation to cohere out of the chaos of the Collapse.

(Similar, but different events occurred in other places. Enough people considered themselves to be Australians, Germans, or Thai that their societies could re-emerge. Russia was reunited by main force, one conquest at a time. This eventually lead to the EuroWars.)

In the US, the war with the NAN may have helped this. A fight against an obviously hostile enemy tends to increase national identification. Howling Coyote strengthened the cohesion of the rest of the country, at the same time he was leading would-be breakaway regions. Ironic, but true.

Thanks for the comments, Jeremiah.

[kzt]

I'm not saying you can't build society. I'm saying that a horribly infectious and horribly lethal pandemic will prevent that until the plague is burned out and for some time afterward. You are talking about a pandemic that is 2-3 times more infectious than the 1918 influenza epidemic and has a fatality rate on the order of 2500% higher. Directly kills, not second order effects. Including second order effects you are probably talking about 80% of the human population dying, with the highest level of survival in the least urbanized countries. Countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and Afghanistan.

Plus it makes the SURVIVORS sick for 5-6 weeks. Which suggests that essentially everyone is going to be sick or taking care of family members who are sick, or in quarantine for at least 2-3 months. During the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. (Nov, Dec, Jan) Everyone includes cops, soldiers, nurses, power company linemen, truck drivers, train engineers, grain elevator operators, oil refinery operators. Entire nations will be sick at home for months, and half of them will die from the disease. Those who don't have the infection in their houses will take steps to stay that way, which includes not leaving and nobody coming in. Fuel will run out and things will fall more and more to pieces. People will freeze to death in their homes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Eventually people will stop getting sick and the deaths will stop. At that time you can start to try to get stuff working. People who try to jump the gun and rebuild too early will die horribly, as will their families.

[apieros]

You are talking about a pandemic that is 2-3 times more infectious than the 1918 influenza epidemic... Including second order effects you are probably talking about 80% of the human population dying

I understand what you're saying. I understand why you're saying that. My response is:

1.) For those that think that, simply turn the lethality down. Instead of 40% deaths, go with 30%, or 20% or whatever you consider plausible.

2.) The commonly accepted "society killer" death rate is 20%. (AFAIK.) I've seen sources make the case for 40%-60%, which is what I went with. No one has to accept this, just turn the rate down.

What's important for my campaign (and canon SR) isn't the exact percent, it's what after-effects the disease caused. In my game, it lead to a unified but severely weakened US (the "Articles of Confederation" US) and the NAN rebellion. In the canon, it lead to... well, Shadowrun.

I'm saying that a horribly infectious and horribly lethal pandemic will prevent that until the plague is burned out and for some time afterward...Eventually people will stop getting sick and the deaths will stop. At that time you can start to try to get stuff working.

Those are perfectly reasonable and, AFAIK, true statements. We just disagree about where to draw the line.

By way of curiosity, what lethality do you think is socially survivable? What lethality do you think would lead to a weakly united, almost Articles of Confederation US?

Plus it makes the SURVIVORS sick for 5-6 weeks. Which suggests that essentially everyone is going to be sick or taking care of family members who are sick

A quick clarification: The alt-VITAS only causes one symptom—the infected acquire new allergies. They become allergic to, for example, vinyl, pet dander, peanuts, etc. Which specific allergies a patient acquires varies based on environment.

Thus people "sick" with the disease only suffer ill effects when they come into contact with something they're allergic to (an allergen). If they haven't, they appear completely healthy.

VITAS isn't like the flu or any other infectious disease. People with it can appear healthy for long periods of time. Only when they encounter specific allergens do they display symptoms.

It's an odd disease, but it perfectly matches the acronym: Virally Induced Toxic Allergy Syndrome. The virus induces allergies, which in some patients are lethal. The description of the disease follows from that.

Plus it makes the SURVIVORS sick for 5-6 weeks.

This is something else I can futz with.

Given carte blanche, and knowing what social and campaign world effects I'm aiming for (AoC US, limited secondary effects from famine, etc.), what values would you give for:

1.) Infectiousness (% pop. exposed who become ill)?
2.) Lethality (% ill people who die)?
3.) Latency (avg. time period after infection but before before first symptoms appear)?
4.) Time to severe symptoms (avg. time period after symptoms, until lethal symptoms first appear)?
5.) Length of infection (avg. time ill, from exposure to becoming well)?

Just curious what you think.

[kzt]

The other questions that comes to mind are:

1) If you have VITAS and recover are you immune to future infections?

2) It appears as I reread things that the 25% of people who don't get VITAS are intrinsically immune. Is that correct?

[apieros]

1) If you have VITAS and recover are you immune to future infections?

VITAS itself is gone, other than samples left in the ground (in mass graves), government labs, or whatever reservoir it originally came from (a specific population of birds, monkeys, or some other species of animal located somewhere on the border between India and China).

On an individual level, once you get well, you're immune to VITAS and stuck with whatever allergies you gained while ill, for the rest of your life.

But, VITAS causes you to acquire allergies that are indistinguishable from naturally acquired ones. One of the aspects of allergies is that each time you're exposed to a specific allergen, there's a chance your reaction will become worse. (A tiny chance, but a chance.) If it does, you might find yourself with a lethal allergy, years after the fact. As Orc Rights Crusader said, "VITAS is still killing people, decades after the disease went away."

It appears as I reread things that the 25% of people who don't get VITAS are intrinsically immune.?

Yes. 25% of human beings (or meta-human beings, for that matter) are intrinsically immune to the disease. Inject it into their veins, they will never become sick.

This immunity seems to be distributed more-or-less evenly across ethnicities. I'm assuming its tied to one chromosomal mutation or another, which may have other effects. Maybe you're immune to VITAS, but more vulnerable to heart disease or tension headaches.

[Sengir]

I'm not talking about units "in the field", waging war against an active enemy.

Me neither, but soldiers on relief effort are not exactly living in holiday resorts, either (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
And like I said, even in normal times a military base means lots of people living together on relatively small space, plus thousands of commuters. So even though the military will probably see less than 75% infection rate and 55% lethality, as the average soldier is in better physical shape than the total population average, the consequences would nevertheless be devastating.

Just for comparison, the cumulated losses of the Wehrmacht in WW2 were a bit under 30%. And yes, that makes even the canon 25% VITAS deaths seem ridiculous.

US citizens consume about 2.5 bushels per year

But they don't just eat grain (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[kzt]

So even though the military will probably see less than 75% infection rate and 55% lethality, as the average soldier is in better physical shape than the total population average, the consequences would nevertheless be devastating.

With the 1918 influenza pandemic the casualty rate among the young and healthy was significantly higher then the general population. There is a huge upward wedge in the mortality figures, centered on about age 30 and starting at 5 and running to about 45.

[apieros]

US citizens consume about 2.5 bushels per year

But they don't just eat grain (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

True, that's why I pointed out programs for beef, cheese, and other staples. Plus the "on-hand" supplies issue. (Though I left out the several foreign aid food programs, which also keep large stocks of food on hand.) The point being that there is a lot more food available than people have been assuming.

But this is a smaller part of a larger issue. If you feel that 40% death rate is implausible, just adjust it downward.

Me neither, but soldiers on relief effort are not exactly living in holiday resorts, either

Are you referring to those who returned to America? Because not all troops in foreign countries are on aid missions.

Military bases are not dark, dirty holes people are crammed into. I know, I grew up on a base in Germany (Hoi to Schweinfurt!) and one in the US (Fort Knox, KY). Plus, I live near another. (Hill AFB.) I know military bases.

But this is a red herring, as even were they dark, dirty holes it wouldn't make a significant difference to alt-VITAS. What is more on point is the casualty figures.

My point is, and was, that military units (especially those in hostile territory) can take 40% casualties from alt-VITAS and still maintain unit cohesion.

You cite Wehrmacht in WW2. I see that, and raise Paulus' 6th Army in the battle of Stalingrad. He started with 250,000 soldiers, and by the end was down to 91,000. That's 64% casualties, during which his Army remained intact and actively engaged in brutal combat with the Soviets. (I looked for Soviet casualties in the same battle, but could only find body counts, not a percentage.)

Army units, cut off in a foreign land, surrounded by hostiles (Iraq and Afghanistan), who take 40% casualties can survive as a unit. But...

Again, this is part of a larger dispute. If 40% seems unrealistic, dial it back.

Your game, your rules, your fun.

[Sengir]

True, that's why I pointed out programs for beef, cheese, and other staples.

Problem with those is that unlike rice, beans, and condensed milk, they are perishable. Which is why such goods are usually only bought up for price stability or as indirect subsidies and not intended (or prepared) for distribution among the population.
And if I'm understanding you correctly, you are assuming major population centers will run on bunkered supplies for months.

Are you referring to those who returned to America? Because not all troops in foreign countries are on aid missions.

I'm referring to what I initially quoted: The troops deployed domestically for relief efforts, manning critical infrastructure, yadda yadda.

Wherever soldiers are billeted, there are lots of people in one place. And where lots of people are in one place, diseases spread. The place does not need to be dark and grimy, just a lot of people coughing, shaking hands, breathing the same air, touching the same door handles...

You cite Wehrmacht in WW2. I see that, and raise Paulus' 6th Army in the battle of Stalingrad. He started with 250,000 soldiers, and by the end was down to 91,000. That's 64% casualties, during which his Army remained intact and actively engaged in brutal combat with the Soviets. (I looked for Soviet casualties in the same battle, but could only find body counts, not a percentage.)

Army units, cut off in a foreign land, surrounded by hostiles (Iraq and Afghanistan), who take 40% casualties can survive as a unit.

Keeping fighting is not that hard when somebody keeps shooting at you, but acting effectively on a larger tactical or strategic level is something else (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[kzt]

My point is, and was, that military units (especially those in hostile territory) can take 40% casualties from alt-VITAS and still maintain unit cohesion.

No, because 75% of the unit and their families are sick for 5-6 weeks, and over half of them die. What do you think that period will be like? And there is no outside enemy providing the incentive to hold together.

[apieros]

Problem with those is that unlike rice, beans, and condensed milk, they are perishable.

Cheese can survive for long periods of time. Even if it gets moldy, you cut off the moldy bits and the rest is edible. (The flavor changes, but it is edible.) Meat can be preserved in any number of ways including jerking (salt and drying) and canning (canned meat can last for a couple of years).

And perishability doesn't really impact the current discussion. They store the food. It's there. I know, I've seen it. I've eaten it.

The point is that there is a lot of food—a year of grain for millions of people, and many other types of food besides—set aside by the government. And that ignores food stored by private charities, such as the Catholic Church or local food banks, personal gardens, or personal food storage (such as practiced by Mormons, who are encouraged to keep a 1 year's supply of food in their houses).

Plus, the hungrier you are, the more things become edible. People can eat dandelions, weeds, bugs, worms, dogs, cats, and many other things they normally wouldn't, if hungry enough. You can even survive on that crap.

The notion that "9 days in the city, then no food, then everybody dies" is simply wrong. It's wrong as to the amount of food normally available (1-2 months), it's wrong as to the amount of government food available. More, it's wrong as a matter of basic biology.

Given adequate hydration, humans can survive with no food at all for up to 40 days (per Scientific American). Given adequate water, they can survive for years on tiny amounts of food eaten intermittently. (As concentration camp survivors showed.)

So, yes, major population centers can survive on "bunkered", personal, and private food stores for months. (Setting other problems aside.) In fact, those same cities could survive on no food at all for 28 to 40 days!

If we're going to criticize the VITAS/The Collapse writeup on the basis of realism, we should use real facts and statistics. The above information is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. Altogether it means that the situation is not as dire as was initially claimed.

The troops deployed domestically for relief efforts, manning critical infrastructure, yadda yadda.

There is a gradual breakdown in the effectiveness of those troops, as the plague proceeds. Eventually, they suffer from high rates of desertion, and in many cases the chain of command is broken.

By that point the government has called the troops back from Afghanistan, Iraq, and pretty much every other place on the globe. Those soldiers have already survived the plague, and can be used as-is. They become the backbone of Reclamation.

Keeping fighting is not that hard when somebody keeps shooting at you

It depends on who you are, and the circumstances you find yourself in. Desertion happens while under fire, while travelling to a battle, after a battle, on leave, when being called up for duty...

The claim (not yours) was that every soldier would grab their families and head for the hills, then the families would fall apart. My point was that those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have no families on base. And even if they did, there was no place they could flee to, they're stuck in a foreign country and the only safe spot is with the other soldiers, where they already are.

Medical facilities? Modern on base, poor in the boondocks. Food, water, housing? Guaranteed to be there on base, iffy at best elsewhere. Security? You're surrounded by thousands of other soldiers on base... vs. being alone outside.

And, despite all the back and forth, no one has explained why the opposite is true: that soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq would flee the safety of their base and run into enemy territory, into a country falling into chaos, riven with ethnic or tribal warfare, directly into the maw of an ongoing plague. That's just silly to claim, yet it's been repeated several times in the thread.

And even were it proved, it's just a small part of the larger issue. If you feel that 40% death rate is implausible, just adjust it downward.

It's that easy.