Biological Attack Vs. Natural Outbreak

[Joynewyeary]

Is it possible that attackers could deliberately create biological weapons of such a type and use those weapons in a manner as to give the impression of a natural outbreak?

In case of what is believed to be a natural outbreak, would a government functioning according to Objectivist principles be prohibited from evacuating people from vulnerable locations, treating victims, developing vaccines, and providing vaccination to the general public?

How important is it to distinguish between an attack and a natural outbreak? If it is extremely important, then why is it that important?

[softwareNerd]

If there such an outbreak of disease, there are may be various categories of action required. Some that come to mind are:

<li>Medical treatment to cure the ill and prevent further illness

1. Enforcement of rules to ensure people to act in a way that protects others
   
2. If it was an attack, taking action against the enemy
   

So, what's the government's role? #3 is uncontroversial. Assuming that it were a true epidemic, with serious consequences, proactive action/restrictions (i.e. #2) would be rational and legitimate.

So, that leaves #1. In what way would a Capitalist government be in a position to help in that category of actions? Surely that is something best left to doctors.

[Joynewyeary]

If there such an outbreak of disease, there are may be various categories of action required. Some that come to mind are:

Medical treatment to cure the ill and prevent further illness [...]

Surely that is something best left to doctors.

If a government is based on Objectivist principles, then is the government not permitted to employ medical researchers to develop vaccines for future victims of a biological weapons attack?

If a government based on Objectivist principles may employ such medical researchers, then isn't it possible that many of those researchers would be doctors?

The distinction seems to be:

biological attack --> government doctors may help victims

natural outbreak --> only privately practicing doctors may help victims

(If that's not right, then please correct me. I'm not making a claim. I'm just making a guess about what you are claiming.)

The question is: what is the basis for that distinction?

Also, how important is the distinction? Would it be wrong for government doctors to help victims before it is confirmed that the problem was created by a biological attack?

[softwareNerd]

No, I did not claim a distinction between medical reaction based on the source of the problem. I merely said that more doctors etc. are likely to be available outside of government. Now, you've added a new assumption, which is that the people who can help are mostly employed by the government. In that case, I don't see why the government would not help out in an emergency. Do you see a reason why people in government should be banned from helping out?

[DavidOdden]

Is it possible that attackers could deliberately create biological weapons of such a type and use those weapons in a manner as to give the impression of a natural outbreak?

You're asking a fairly specific scientific question, which would be better addressed to a specialised board of scientists. It should be possible to engineer the appearance of a natural outbreak by carefully introducing a virulent disease gradually enough, for example by infecting say ten terrorists with something that's sufficiently communicable and then having them fly through some of the busier hubs in the US, especially during a holiday. A form of flu would be most effective, in contrast to smallpox (if suddenly 100 people developed smallpox in the US, there would be no possibility of mistaking it for an attack, or the most colossal blunder and coverup at the hands of the CDC that you could imagine). I don't know if they recovered any salvageable Spanish flu viri from Longyearbyen, but if they did I thing a sudden outbreak of Spanish flu would also be suspicious enough that it would signal an attack.

In case of what is believed to be a natural outbreak, would a government functioning according to Objectivist principles be prohibited from evacuating people from vulnerable locations, treating victims, developing vaccines, and providing vaccination to the general public?

The presupposition is invalid: it would not matter whether the disease were planned or natural. The correct question (if you want to ask the central question about government involvement) is whether a person who has the disease has the right to infect others, and the answer is that they do not. It then follows that the government has the responsibility to enforce a quarantine, if one becomes necessary.

You're presupposing something questionable when you talk about "government doctors". I assume you are speaking of medical doctors who work for the military: there is no reason why such a doctor could not provide assistance in case of pandemic, but this cannot take priority over treating soldiers who fall ill (nor can such a contingency be justification for hiring an overabundance of doctors for the military). Other than that, there would be no such thing as a "government doctor".

[Joynewyeary]

Now, you've added a new assumption, which is that the people who can help are mostly employed by the government.

I didn't intend to add a new assumption. Perhaps I failed to express myself sufficiently clearly. I was responding to the following: "In what way would a Capitalist government be in a position to help in that category of actions? Surely that is something best left to doctors."

I thought you were making a distinction between government employees and doctors, as though no doctors would be employed by the government.

In that case, I don't see why the government would not help out in an emergency.

I suppose that, for the people directly affected, it would be an emergency. However, from the point of view of a country, state, or even city, I don't see why the situation would necessarily be an emergency. It's not obvious to me that an enemy government would even intend to create an emergency. For example, isn't it possible that an attack might be deliberately made on a small scale to try to avoid provoking major retaliation in case it is discovered that the disease was deliberately introduced?