Biological incidents can vary widely in scope and scale, requiring adaptable and flexible plans. Appropriate planning considerations for response to and recovery from such incidents may be better understood if the incidents are described in terms of their defining characteristics.
Defining characteristics for biological incidents include, but are not limited to, whether the incident involves:
- An intentional attack vs. an accidental release vs. a natural outbreak
- A contagious disease vs. a non-contagious disease
- A discrete location of release vs. a wide-area release or outbreak
- A notice vs. a no-notice event
- An agent for which all appropriate MCMs (e.g., diagnostic tests, prophylaxis, therapeutics) are available, for which some MCMs are available, or for which no MCMs are available
Examining the similarities and differences between incidents using these various defining characteristics can help provide planners with a baseline understanding of potential response and recovery considerations and inform corresponding decision-making. For example, an incident involving a few individuals with anthrax, a non-contagious disease, whether intentional or accidental, requires significant resources for mass communication and decontamination. However, such an incident may have limited needs for ongoing medical services, mass care, or sheltering-in-place. An incident involving a contagious biological agent, such as a respiratory pandemic, will necessitate consideration of pathogen detection and mass communication as well as health and medical services. In some cases, pandemics may also generate unique mass care and sheltering-in-place requirements.
Beyond the examples discussed in detail above, many types of biological incidents will require collaboration between emergency management, public health, healthcare, and other community stakeholders to mount an effective response. For example, a vector-borne outbreak could involve multiple partners to help prevent exposure to insects, such as mosquito abatement measures put in place during the WNV outbreak in 2000. A waterborne outbreak such as Legionnaires’ disease would involve local water authorities to ensure water systems are treated appropriately and to advise the public on when water is again safe to use. A measles outbreak in young children would need to involve local school districts and childcare facilities to develop and implement a workable response plan. An outbreak of hepatitis A among people experiencing unstable housing or homelessness may require engagement from local social service organizations, shelters, and public safety. Specific characteristics of a particular biological incident will dictate which community stakeholders need to be involved in response and recovery. Cultivating relationships between emergency management, public health, and healthcare planners can help to establish those connections.
During the response to a biological incident, some or all of these defining characteristics may not be immediately known, and this lack of information may impede or frustrate decision-making on the part of SLTT stakeholders. The key planning factors and considerations discussed in this document are meant to provide planners with the crosscutting knowledge needed to plan for biological incidents, even in the absence of detailed incident characterization early in the response.