Ken,
More of "Pascal's Wager". BTW, I couldn't pull up that article with your link. Could you please repost it... I'll revise this post once I can read the study.
IMO, and without having read other previous posts which may have included the nuclear factor, those figures sound exaggerated. Perhaps 30% of the unattended elderly might die, considering Y2K rolls over in winter.
Also, it sounds like that "study" assumes a total failure of all power grids, which is unlikely.
Remember a few points about the Y2K roll-over:
(a) it is on a Friday night, so failures and subsequent monitoring will probably start by around 10-11a.m (EST) that Friday, and continue into the weekend (on non-business days)
(b) unlike the depression in the 20s, the Y2K problem is a forseeable event; thus, precautions can be taken and preparations can be made, no matter how nominal. Regardless of whether these precautions are sufficient to avert such a large percentage of death, it is nonetheless a "known" future event which can, again, be at least minimally addressed.
(c) Y2K non-compliance of a system small or large, is not tantamount to "death" or "doom", that is, if a system hasn't been tested, and it faults, one should evaluate its criticality and its impact on down-line (dependent) and up-line (reliant) systems.
(d) The greatest negative impact to our pre-Y2K economy will be from and by the very people presenting and harboring apocalyptic viewpoints and/or by those simply playing "Pascal's Wager". This very viewpoint will be presented to the world, erroneously tainted because the "possible" negative outcomes (which may be great) have been excessively weighted in relation to the remediation and preventative preparation made to avert such potential outcomes, and to simplify this concept for you, I'll provide an example:
What is wrong with this statement?... "Don't play baseball because you might get hit in the head with the ball. If you get hit in the temple, you could die."
Well, nothing is really wrong with this statement. It is a statement based in fact, and contains a possible outcome if one plays baseball. The result of such an outcome might even be death. But to someone unfamiliar with baseball, such a statement is enough to terrorize them into never playing, especially in light of such a horrible "possible" outcome. Even for career baseball players, such an event is unforeseeable, though a known risk. Now, knowing the inherent risks of baseball, why do we play it and why aren't more people killed?
The same Y2K "logic" I receive in PMs is generally framed in the context of the all-too-horrible outcome, with little rational given the the other preventative forces at play. You can apply "Pascal's Wager" to every aspect of life e.g. "If I drive, I could get killed. So, to play it safe, I'll never drive." or "Well, during Y2K, something or nothing will happen. So, I'll play it safe, by assuming something happens. If something happens, I'm covered. If nothing happens, nothing really lost." The same treatment is now given to a problem that has been and will continue to be addressed until and after Y2K GMT .
Now, your "updated" 45%/90% figure, at this point, is speculation and here's why...
1. True, the world is more connected, but a complete one month outage is unlikely. For areas that do experience even a TOTAL failure, frozen goods get spoiled and the locals will have to resort to canned or dry goods. Water, electricity, 911, communication fails and the locals now become reliant on non-failing areas, if any...which I believe there will be. Insurance companies will have to pay up, lawyers will grow a bit wealthier, etc. We'll all wake up the next morning to find the power company working diligently to avoid a lawsuit.
2. re: JIT ... this may be a restatement of item 1 and 6. Please elaborate.
3. Naturally, the population has increased, but this isn't a potential cause, directly or indirectly, of death, so I'm really not sure why you included it in the list.
4. Less farmers, true. The assumption that only farmers will survive (especially in the winter) is, I believe, flawed. You imply 45% of the population, let alone non-farmers will/could die. The non-farming population isn't **only** reliant on "just-in-time" supply, and in the winter a substantial supply of food will continue to flow in from the existing import and stored/inventory-based supply chains (which makes sense since, again, it'll be winter time), though I expect Y2K disruptions in some of those distribution chains.
5. re: "Far less access to water...". What about to Mountain Dew? Budweiser? Champagne? Or even SNOW? Hmmmm...I receive Poland Spring bi-weekly, but that's just me. Ok, if things do get ugly, I have to bathe out of a sink for a day or so or maybe a week. I think I'll live, and I think a large percentage of your 45% figure will too. If my elderly neighbor, Edith, gets thirsty, I'll gladly share gallons of my spring water with her and others...but only for consumption. What's that saying? "Do unto others ...". Bottled water supplies and other supplies could dry up, assuming all of the suppliers in the world are ignoring Y2K, which they're not.
6. re. "reliance on computers..." True, but you repeat yourself (item 1 and 2) so your 45/95% isn't strengthened.
7. Not sure why you added this, but I suspect you'll hope it makes the list look longer and your study "more believable", I guess.
One thing is noticeably devoid in this and other Y2K threads: The actual posting of Y2K-specific coding problems and the EXACT reasons why "this or that coding flaw which I just fixed (or can't seem to fix)" will result in total failure of "the water pumps holding back the local reservoir" or even their own particular system.
Yes, some things are currently NOT Y2K compliant, but I'm very glad we know that NOW, instead of 6 months from now. Even as many Y2K tests have failed (and are being fixed), can one logically and categorically apply that specific failure, or likelihood of failure to "other" critical systems, and with high probability of COMPLETE failure? Again, where are the ** specific ** and even anonymously posted problems which will be known to wipe out "all other" unrelated critical systems? This is one of several reasons why I visit this thread less and less.
More and more people NOT "in the know" or have since retired or "report" or "monitor" the problem or regurgitate other posts and news links now congregate here hyping non-Y2K compliance and de-emphasizing known, critical compliance.
What I hear more often are people speaking on behalf of their friends who are "senior programmers/analysts" or someone else "in the know" and speculating on total systematic failures of systems they know nothing about. It's worse than a multi-level marketing rumor mill.
Well, I myself am a programmer. I listen to the pundits and I listen to the government-hating conspiracy theorists would shout that Clinton et. al. are sugar coating the issue. I have worked in the heart of some very Y2K-sensitive applications and have been involved directly or indirectly with about eleven systems over the span of four or so years which, at some point, have required Y2K analysis and remediation... and you know what? The only thing I can say, even in consideration of some of our failures, is that now that our systems are tested and have been repeatedly rolled through simulated Y2K events including simulated failures - tests which have taken place in tandem with suppliers, clients, disaster recovery centers and backup power suppliers is "We are Y2K compliant." That's ALL I can say.
When we encountered failures, we made necessary reparation. Most were non-critical failures which technically made us "non-compliant", but nobody, we think, died (or would have died in the event it was real or individuals responsible were stuck in an elevator). Our failures though, didn't equate to others' failures or even "reasonable" speculation of the WORST outcome - death - which I think is an important point. The only thing we could reliably say is that "other developers under similar scenarios will or have experienced similar problems".
I realize that given all the time and testing in the world one will never be able to predict certain Y2K-related failures and events, but that shouldn't justify living or speculating in fear; just as the possibility of getting hit by a car doesn't keep me from leaving the house and just as the possibility of playing baseball which could result in Scrumpy's untimely death doesn't prevent him from swinging at the ball.
But with that in mind, and knowing the incredible efforts expended over the last five years by people who know what they're doing, and which I inherently trust, I view the year 2000 with optimism unlike several others (but more from an investment standpoint...capitalizing on the fear fuelers). Now, this isn't to say I will pretend everything is "ok", but to suggest that speculation is pointless and that equal weight should be applied to BOTH sides of the Y2K debate.
In the meantime, I'll keep a close eye on you guys...
Scrumpy
|
