2 ms·

Why is that an okay situation to be in? Given things floods, dirty bombs, etc. have a non-zero chance of happening, shouldn't cities, states and countries have

Why is that an okay situation to be in? Given things floods, dirty bombs, etc. have a non-zero chance of happening, shouldn't cities, states and countries have the infrastructure to perform mass-evacuations if necessary?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why is that an okay situation to be in? Because the cost to not be in it is enormous.
- ej_campbell 9y ago
  Enormous compared to what? We spend 3.2 trillion a year on Medicare, which is 9.9K a person [1]. Imagine if just 1K per person per year (300B) was spent on infrastructure every year to make mass evacuations over a few days possible. Imagine how great normal day to day travel would be once that is in place, city by city. [1] https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Enormous compared to what? Enormous compared to the value provided. > We spend 3.2 trillion a year on Medicare No, we don't. As your own source says, it is only $646 billion on Medicare, and $3.2 trillion a year in total combined public and private healthcare expenditures. > Imagine if just 1K per person per year (300B) was spent on infrastructure every year to make mass evacuations over a few days possible. Then it still probably wouldn't be enough, and we'd get a lot more value for nearly doubling infrastructure spending [0] if we spent it on something else. [0] $416 billion/year in 2014, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463
bsder 9y ago
You have to weigh the death toll of the evacuation against the death toll of the disaster. We see the flooding issue right now--an evacuation would have killed far more people. A dirty bomb? Once the bomb goes off you will have plenty of time to evacuate where you need to. Keeping radioactivity contained would be more problematic than removing people. A biological agent? You want to quarantine rather than evacuate. A fire? San Diego showed how to deal with that--phased evacuations ahead of the actual fire path. Earthquake? Well, once it's done you have plenty of time to evacuate. I can't really think of anything that would affect something the size of Houston simultaneously.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Why is that an okay situation to be in? Because the cost to not be in it is enormous.

ej_campbell 9y ago
Enormous compared to what? We spend 3.2 trillion a year on Medicare, which is 9.9K a person [1]. Imagine if just 1K per person per year (300B) was spent on infrastructure every year to make mass evacuations over a few days possible. Imagine how great normal day to day travel would be once that is in place, city by city. [1] https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Enormous compared to what? Enormous compared to the value provided. > We spend 3.2 trillion a year on Medicare No, we don't. As your own source says, it is only $646 billion on Medicare, and $3.2 trillion a year in total combined public and private healthcare expenditures. > Imagine if just 1K per person per year (300B) was spent on infrastructure every year to make mass evacuations over a few days possible. Then it still probably wouldn't be enough, and we'd get a lot more value for nearly doubling infrastructure spending [0] if we spent it on something else. [0] $416 billion/year in 2014, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463

bsder 9y ago

You have to weigh the death toll of the evacuation against the death toll of the disaster. We see the flooding issue right now--an evacuation would have killed far more people. A dirty bomb? Once the bomb goes off you will have plenty of time to evacuate where you need to. Keeping radioactivity contained would be more problematic than removing people. A biological agent? You want to quarantine rather than evacuate. A fire? San Diego showed how to deal with that--phased evacuations ahead of the actual fire path. Earthquake? Well, once it's done you have plenty of time to evacuate. I can't really think of anything that would affect something the size of Houston simultaneously.