How would society cope with a pandemic?

Based on what I've read on the subject, we are less equipped to handle a severe pandemic than we were in 1918. Medical Response The medical system in the US and most modern countries have limited excess capacity to deal with a large influx of patients requiring hospitalization or urgent care.  In the US, the occupancy rates of hospital beds has declined since 1970s, but the total capacity has also dropped. Total available beds on average is declining and is less than 300K (or aobut 0.1% of the population). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/116.pdf There are chronic ER capacity problems and Doctor shortages across in most regions (based on news reporting which may or may not be accurately describing the situation). This would further diminish our ability provide medical care to those affected by pandemic. Overall, we are at a net loss here. The public expects medical facilities to be available in times of crisis and there simply won't be enough capacity. Medical Supplies In the US, an "emergency" supply of antivrals and antibiotics is maintained by the Strategic National Stockpile. They provide rapid response of medical supplies in a disaster as well as supplementing the supplies in the market. Antiviral stockpiles are peaked around 50M doses for the United States during the swine flu epidemic, but much of the current stockpile is expired or expiring. Further, the http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2013/WTP052749.htm to combat a viral pandemic is still unclear. Antibiotics are continually maintained (known as push packs, as well as other pathogen-specific stockpiles), but http://hsc.unm.edu/pharmacy/poison/docs/pdf/Counter%20Agent%20Preparedness%20-%20JB%202005.pdf Further, the funding for the stockpile is http://www.nature.com/news/budget-forces-tough-look-at-biodefence-1.12766#/stockpile (though it's not clear what will be effected by the cuts yet). With http://www.naturalnews.com/034681_pharmaceuticals_foreign_factories_ingredients.html and 40% of pharmaceuticals made overseas, it's not clear we could effectively increase production during a global pandemic. Other medical supplies (such as gloves and masks) are manufactured overseas as well. In a global pandemic where such supplies may be limited, it's not clear if those supplies would still be exported to countries like the US. Our ability to respond to a pathogen is limited as well. If the next pandemic were an influenza, it could take as long http://long%20as%204-6%20months%20for%20a%20new%20vaccine%20to%20be%20available%20in%20any%20meaningful%20quantity. If we were to encounter a new pathogen to which there is no existing vaccine to adapt, it's not clear that a vaccine or serum could be developed and synthesized before the pandemic creased on its own. Just look to how long it's taken to create a vaccine for http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/research/vaccines/Pages/default.aspx. Overall, we are at a win here, but it's going to be tough for a few months in the middle as we rework our manufacturing capabilities and supply chians. Non-Medical Infrastructure In the wake of 9/11, most federal, state, and local emergency response organizations attempted to update their procedures and command structure to handle a significant loss of personnel (ex: NYPD, NYPD, PANYNJ) and a loss of command logistics (NYC Office of Emergency Management). In this regard, the US and other countries who have been preparing for terrorism and natural disasters, are likely to continue functioning effectively even if they are affected by the pandemic. The private and quasi-government entities may not function as well during a pandemic. Many private sector companies run with limited spare capacity and with as few employees as possible. It's not clear that important or critical functions could be maintained with a significant percent of their staff being incapacitated for a prolonged period of time. Could PG&E keep the power on for everyone if 20% of their staff were sick or caring for loved ones? Would FedEx still be able to deliver urgent supplies across the nation if a significant number of its pilots were sick? Can AT&T keep connecting calls and delivering text messages when a third of its field staff are out of commission? It's possible, though not easy to tell. Government sanctioned monopolies such as PG&E have significant oversight from elected officials over such contingency plans. But other companies are less transparent and it may be difficult to evaluate their claims of readiness. The Public The public is likely at a very low level of readiness. I can't find the link at the moment, but a couple of surveys have shown that a very minuscule number of people are prepared for natural disasters such as earthquakes or fires. While communication has gotten better, the public may not be any better today at discerning misinformation as they were in the past. If anything, panic has the potential to spread more quickly as (malicious or uninformed well-meaning) individuals repeat incorrect information via social media networks. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/pew-for-every-10-americans-only-3-trust-the-government/ so it's not clear how important information and instructions could be distributed to the public to counter misinformation. Would the public listen to government warnings and recommendations at the early stages of a new pandemic? It's not clear (and I haven't been able to find any reputable surveys on the subject after the 2009 swine flu epidemic). On the plus side, there is a lot more information available to the average person on how to take care of some needs during a disaster. There are trusted sources of information for important skills like basic first aid.

Well, there are pandemics, and then there are pandemics. We are currently enduring a pandemic of HIV, though because it is not a particularly hardy virus, and because it is largely restricted to well-recognized susceptible populations, we've had the luxury of time to discover much about its pathogenesis and have been able to develop effective palliative, if not curative, pharmacotherapeutic and containment strategies. On the other hand, there was the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-1919. After it was first identified amongst a troop of soldiers in Kansas, within seven months it had erupted into a global pandemic with a case fatality rate of >2.5%, making it more than one hundred times more lethal than other influenza strains. Inexplicably, it all but disappeared within eighteen months. The worldwide death toll was anywhere from 25-50 million people. It boggles the mind how suddenly, pervasively, and virulently this virus operated, and it continues to fascinate researchers today as they await yet another pandemic flu. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/pandemics/2012/12/spanish_flu_mystery_why_don_t_scientists_understand_the_1918_flu_even_after.html So to answer your question, if the pandemic develops sufficiently slowly, and if our scientific knowledge and therapeutic strategies outpace the spread of the pathogen, then we are in relatively good shape. Otherwise, as points out, we are woefully unprepared. Assuming that a pandemic would most likely be etiologically viral, one could only prevent infection if one were able to very rapidly develop a safe, effective, cheap and widely available vaccine. Though strategies such as those being pursued by Craig Venter hold promise, much depends upon how rapidly the virus mutates, leaving aside the politics and economics of vaccine dissemination. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/research-team-publishes-new-methods-for-synthetic-generation-of-influenza-vaccines/ If the virus eludes vaccine developers, and if an effective antiviral drug cannot be found and provided globally, then containment is really the only proven strategy. I agree with Joe that hospitals and supportive medical care would be essentially useless if the case fatality rate were anything in excess of 2.5%. http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/HistoryQuarantine.html An interesting consideration is how social media might affect public behaviour in a pandemic. While the availability of useful information might be of benefit to  coordinate activities of credible organizations such as the CDC, WHO and other high level institutions , the risks of misinformation and the propagation of segmental hysteria might overwhelm its benefit. The following is a relevant discussion sponsored by the European Commission in 2010: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/101007%20Importance%20of%20Social%20Media%20for%20Member%20States_hm.pdf

We have learned a lot since the flue pandemic and emergency plans already exist already on the national and world-wide scale.If the pandemic were truly horrendous, a State of Siege would be declared to deal with the situation; it would be similar to when a country is under nuclear attack but without the widespread damage.People between 12 and 70 would be drafted into the military (except the infirm); they wouldn't be issued uniforms or weapons, it's a technical matter to make them subject to military laws. This allows the government to do whatever is needed.Infected people would be quarantined in special areas and healthy people in their working place. So factory labourers would be living in or near the factory. By using this system, we can effectively keep essential production going. This might mean of course people in the neighbourhood might have to be relocated. Non-essential persons would be assigned new jobs (such as lawyers, judges [no more civilian law], notaries, bureaucrats, etc.).On the medical front, resources would be pooled from he private, military, and government sectors to come up with both a vaccine and a cure.On the international front, the WHO would put in place a series of measures to try and contain the spreading of the pandemic. The UN would create a special panel to make sure essential supplies reach the countries who need them (for example a country which relies on imports to feed the population would still receive such shipments).Jobs which require a lot of interaction with various people would be suspended unless vital; so no more postal service, no more package companies, etc. Businesses which bring people together would be closed: no more pubs, restaurants, theatres, etc.Our studies have shown society can continue of 30 % of the essential workforce is incapacitated; we basically introduce an 12-hour day instead of an 8-hour one. Emergency services would have to do 16-hour shifts.On the practical front a triage system would be set up: those who most likely can't be saved would be removed to 'holding areas' which is a euphemism we use for areas where people are left to die. The others would be treated with the resources available. The problem of the lack of hospital space would be dealt with by creating emergency medical station in whatever places are available. Emergency medical training would increase the number of nurses and former nurses would be back on the job. The production of medical equipment would be increased as would that of relevant medication. Of course, we wouldn't be talking hospital beds here, just a mattress on the floor will do. Finally, mass burial would take place if mass incineration is not possible.