The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

There's no place like home in bioterror attack

Imagine, for a second, that the grim predictions of bioterror come true. Imagine that somehow, somewhere, a terrorist group plants a lethal virus on American soil, and now it's only a matter of time before the contagion finds a path to your doorstep. Would you flee, hoping to stay a step ahead of infection? Or would you retreat to the confines of your home, while a plague rages outside?

In a recent study, the Critical Incident Analysis Group -- a University think tank dedicated to helping the public respond to potential crises -- proposes the answer. The group found that in the event of a bioterror outbreak, the public would be better off staying put than engaging in a mass exodus.

"While it is prudent to run from a burning house, it's not prudent to leave a house during a blizzard," said CIAG Director Greg Saathoff, one of several authors of the report.

Shielding, as the stay-at-home strategy is called, would decrease the threat of infection among the population and thus lower the body count. By hunkering down in their own homes, families would reduce their exposure to a contagion and also prevent it from spreading to other parts of the country.

Saathoff said that smallpox, the virus experts expect will be used against the United States in the event of an attack, is not contagious beyond a radius of 8 feet -- thus, a family is safer staying at home than leaving town.

Additionally, by monitoring their body temperatures, the family can determine if one of them has been infected. A body temperature in excess of 100 degrees would indicate infection.

"Shielding would break the back of any virus that was released. It's not only the safest thing for a family to do, but it is also the most patriotic in a sense," Saathoff said.

But appeals to patriotism aside, Saathoff said that if given enough information, the general public will embrace the shielding strategy and check the impulse to flee.

"The logic of shielding is pretty clear when you think about it. But the thinking must be done in advance because people make the most rational decisions in a stable evironment. Clearly, a bioterror attack is not the ideal place for careful thought," Saathoff said.

Saathoff also points out that self-imposed shielding offers the public more transparency than a governmental response.

"In the event of an attack, things could become catastrophic if we moved to government-enforced quarantines. The image of National Guard troops cordoning off neighborhoods is very painful, perhaps as painful as the attack itself. You need trust in government, and a quarantine would help unravel that trust."

An important component of the CIAG's proposal is public involvement in the planning of community response strategies.

"The anthrax episode teaches us that it is very important to engage the public in this effort rather than doing it behind closed doors," Law Prof. Richard Bonnie said. "This way of thinking is not typical of national security policy, which is top down. This is exactly opposite. It's bottom up."

Bonnie also emphasizes that a response plan should be in place before an attack. Without one, "important decisions would be made under incredible uncertainty. Very careful advanced thinking is critical."

"In order to have an effective policy, there will have to be cooperation among all kinds of community institutions," Bonnie added.

Local Savings

Comments

Latest Video

Latest Podcast

Ahead of Lighting of the Lawn, Riley McNeill and Chelsea Huffman, co-chairs of the Lighting of the Lawn Committee and fourth-year College students, and Peter Mildrew, the president of the Hullabahoos and third-year Commerce student, discuss the festive tradition which brings the community together year after year. From planning the event to preparing performances, McNeil, Huffman and Mildrew elucidate how the light show has historically helped the community heal in the midst of hardship.