New Perspective Thoughts!

[Midnitemo]

I'd like to say no and that i'd turn them away but i don't think i'd get away with it due to mother , daughter , sister in law and mother inlaw...for the sake of unity i'd probably have to help.

[bigpaul]

no I don't think I'd like to go against that lot either! luckily not something I'm going to have to deal with! but then that's the problem isn't it, take in someone or several people you hadn't allowed(prepped) for and your supplies get diminished, take in lots of people and your supplies are gone and now your the ones starving!

---

I think its a good job I'm a hardcase and don't give a damn about people who cant be bothered to prep but instead expect others to do it for them.

[Nix]

Every scenario and situation is unique unto itself. Where you may help one day, you might not the next.

With regards to your last comment, BP, it's impossible to know who this person might be, what skills they might have and perhaps they were better prepped than you but were just damned unlucky? You simply don't know.

I hope I never have to make a decision like that!

[Devonian]

I think taking anyone in is a HUGE risk to your own safety and security.

You will never know what the true situation is, is she genuinely alone; or is she part of a larger group and being sent in to scope you out; has she been kicked out by another group with whom she still has some loyalty too; or is she literally taking advantage of others herself........

As soon as anyone (else) comes through your door your opsec is blown out of the water.

[Lightspeed]

Agreed Dev

And what about the potential for someone from outside being disease ridden?

[NorthernRaider]

Dev and LS, its great to see you guys thinking outside of the box, very refreshing and very much to the point in question.

[bigpaul]

someone I know-say one of my biker mates from Plymouth who I have know for 35 years- might be a problem to turn them away, but a complete stranger? no contest-they aren't getting anywhere near the front door! for every reason stated before by me and others.

[Tibbs735]

I can think of two possible scenarios to frame this question.

The first is a total, Cormac Mcarthy "The Road" style collapse, caused by total economic collapse or whatever, total grid down.

The second is a slow grind, possibly over several years, think slow economic collapse, where the government is still there to a lesser extent, but can't cope, intermittent to no utilities, think the Great depression but most likely much worse. Lawlessness everywhere.

Scenario 1:
During the first 90 days, or however long it takes for our current society is to dissolve, there will be pregnant women and babies mixed in with the general population. Lets assume that you are out in the countryside at your home, with your setup and family/group. During the initial die-off it would probably be best to not take anyone in unless they have a critical skill that you need. It's harsh, but this reality will be playing out all over the country. You have to decide how you will deal with your little share of human misery; will you allow them in and risk attracting more, with more mouth to feed, when they are possibly a scout, willing or unwilling, for another group who "will do whatever it takes to survive." When the cities have stopped burning, it would probably be ok to take people in, as you will need as many people as you can get to get by in an agrarian lifestyle. Ideally you want to be set up so that people can pull their own weight and produce food for themselves, so you are not simply eating stored goods until you run out.

Scenario 2:

I don't think there will be as acute a die-off as scenario one, so you will essentially be blurring into a post-90 day lifestyle, as you would have been for a long time in a slow slide. There wouldn't be as much of an immediate deluge security concern, but word getting out about a stronghold taking in the unprepared would get around quickly, so you may have to limit it to family and friends who make it to you.

Essentially, you have no obligation to take in the unprepared. They could have prepared, they could have followed the basic government advice, they could have questioned the systems that kept them alive. But they did not.

---

Also, if you are surprised by random pregnant people holding screaming babies at your door, you have an immediate security issue. How did they manage to get so close without you noticing?

[bigpaul]

dosent matter what the scenario is, I have prepped for me and mine and nobody else, so I wont be taking in anyone else...period.

[iaaems]

Scenario Two would seem to be the way things just might happen if we are unlucky - my opinion, crystal ball not working.
Over a period of time people will begin to react to the facts that are staring them in the face - some quicker than others. Some of the 'reactors' will be in a position to do things adequately whilst the others will always be trying to catch up. Those who are too late to react or do not have the resources will become 'the problem' that has to be dealt with one way or another.
Life is a 'competitive sport' - survival of the fittest and all that. Sometimes it is going to get unpleasant, possibly very unpleasant, but those who take up the leadership mantle from the possibly failing or totally defunct administration that existed before are going to have to deal with some very messy situations. Let's face it - people are going to die, someone or something will be responsible for this. Those of us who are left alive and 'well' are going to have to clear up the resultant mess. I notice in the news today that someone has been excavating a mass grave - this is the sort of thing that could be in our future if things get out of hand.
I repeat my previous point that we need better education in the basics, some useful manual skills and a positive sense of personal responsibility for our actions starting at a very early age - if we could achieve this then whatever happens more folk would survive well rather than the mass hysteria that is sometimes predicted