Purpose This paper reviews the evidence presented in the HHS report and challenges its characterization of the state of the market. The recent US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report on the blood industry, Adequacy of the National Blood Supply , provides evidence of and acknowledges that the industry has successfully met demand for blood. And yet the tone and takeaway message of the report of the industry is on the verge of collapse. Design/methodology/approach The approach of this paper is a critical review of the evidence presented in the HHS report as well as other recent analyses of the blood industry. Findings While acknowledging the successful performance of the industry to date, the HHS report offers hypothetical disaster scenarios and a lack of centralized data as the main causes for concern. These criticisms ignore the satisfactory response of the industry to prior disasters and fail to recognize that centralized information is not necessary for the efficient operation of a decentralized industry. Originality/value This paper offers a fresh assessment of a report repeating prior forecasts of doom for an industry which to date has very successfully met the United States' demand for blood.

Emergencies critically threaten rights under constitutionally limited government, but before 2020, little scholarship considered the threat posed by a pandemic. COVID-19 has led governments to impose unprecedented restrictions on personal and economic freedom, even in developed and largely free nations. To explore how institutions might more effectively protect individual rights during a pandemic, this paper examines how private protection agencies under libertarian anarchy might deal with demands for protection from a disease in privately owned public spaces.

Researchers have conducted many studies of the process by which people respond to environmental cues or socially transmitted warnings about environmental hazards (Drabek, 1986; Mileti and Sorenson 1990; Sorensen, 2000; Tierney et al., 2001). Lindell and Perry (1992, 2004, 2012) have integrated findings from this research to produce a Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) of the factors that influence individuals’ adoption of protective actions. These findings can be diagrammed in a flow chart that provides a graphic representation of the PADM (see Figure 1). The process of protective action decision making begins with environmental cues, social cues, and warnings. Environmental cues are sights, smells, or sounds that signal the onset of a threat whereas social cues arise from observations of others’ behavior. Warnings are messages that are transmitted from a source (e.g., emergency manager, forecaster, or neighbor) via a channel (e.g., television, radio, siren, or telephone) to a receiver. These messages are expected to produce effects (e.g., changes in receivers’ beliefs and behaviors) that depend on receivers’ characteristics such as their physical (e.g., strength), psychomotor (e.g., vision and hearing), and cognitive (e.g., primary and secondary languages as well as their mental models) abilities as well as their economic (money and vehicles) and social (friends, relatives, neighbors, and coworkers) resources.

Southern Economic JournalVolume 74, Issue 2 p. 315-325 Symposium Hurricanes and Economic Research: An Introduction to the Hurricane Katrina Symposium Bradley T. Ewing, Bradley T. Ewing Jerry S. Rawls College of Business and Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2101 USASearch for more papers by this authorJamie Brown Kruse, Corresponding Author Jamie Brown Kruse krusej@ecu.edu Center for Natural Hazards Research, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858-4353 USAE-mail krusej@ecu.edu; corresponding author.Search for more papers by this authorDan Sutter, Dan Sutter Department of Economics, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX, 78539-2999 USASearch for more papers by this author Bradley T. Ewing, Bradley T. Ewing Jerry S. Rawls College of Business and Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2101 USASearch for more papers by this authorJamie Brown Kruse, Corresponding Author Jamie Brown Kruse krusej@ecu.edu Center for Natural Hazards Research, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858-4353 USAE-mail krusej@ecu.edu; corresponding author.Search for more papers by this authorDan Sutter, Dan Sutter Department of Economics, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX, 78539-2999 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 October 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00840.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume74, Issue2October 2007Pages 315-325 RelatedInformation