How Long Does FEMA Recommend You Be Prepared Now?

I read another article (can’t remember where now) that talked about being prepared for three days. I cringed.

As we all know, three days is an insufficient amount of time to be prepared post-disaster. I got to wondering just where that advice came from. So, I asked our AI overlords: Where does FEMA’s 3 day recommendation of food and water come from?

FEMA’s recommendation for keeping a three-day supply of food and water originates from the agency’s assessment of typical disaster response timelines and its capacity to assist during emergencies. Historically, the 72-hour window has been seen as the critical period when emergency services and supply chains can begin responding and stabilizing following a disaster. Here’s a breakdown of the reasoning:

Origin of the 3-Day Recommendation:

1. Response Time for Emergency Services:
   • In many disasters, it can take up to three days for first responders to reach affected areas and establish relief operations due to logistical and infrastructural challenges.
   • The recommendation was designed to bridge the gap between when a disaster strikes and when outside help arrives.
2. Practical Storage Limitations:
   • A three-day supply was considered realistic and manageable for most households to store and maintain.
3. Consistency Across Guidelines:
   • A three-day timeframe aligns with other preparedness strategies (e.g., battery life of emergency radios or flashlights).

At first glance, that answer sounded reasonable, but the logic quickly falls apart if you stop to think about it.

For starters, stating that it “can take up to three days for first to reach affected areas and establish relief operations” presumes that the responders are not only able to feed and water you when they get there, but that they’ll have all the other unique supplies you may need, such as medications. Or, at the very least, it assumes that they’ll be able to evacuate you elsewhere where those people will have everything you might need. Maybe. But I’d say we keep seeing that our supply infrastructure in the States has a hard time keeping up with any unexpected surge in demand (see toilet paper shortage of 2020). Add in a disaster that removes a portion of supplies from the pool (the region hit by a disaster) and increases regional pressure for supplies (moving people to a place of safety increases demand in that region), then you’re asking a lot.

Moving on, the “three-day supply was considered realistic and manageable” statement also feels short-sighted. Do authorities really believe that people can only stock three days worth of food? Maybe that was the case when housewives went to the grocery store every other day, but surely that’s not the case today? On second thought, I know people who have very little food in their homes and others who eat out constantly, so maybe three days really is asking too much.

What got me most about this answer is the third statement: “A three-day timeframe aligns with other preparedness strategies (e.g., battery life of emergency radios or flashlights).” Let me get this straight … I should be gauging how much food and water to store–two critical items we all absolutely need to survive–because my batteries are expected to only last three days? That can’t possibly be the reason!

Next, I asked if this advice was outdated. Thankfully, the response was yes. In fact, Ready.gov states: “After an emergency, you may need to survive on your own for several days. Being prepared means having your own food, water and other supplies to last for several days.” They go on to state that you should have one gallon of water per person for several days and at least a several-day supply of non-perishable food.

That makes me feel a tad better because I take several to mean the number seven or thereabouts; my wife disagrees. She thinks it could meant as little as the number three. In fact, we had an argument about that years ago, so I looked it up. Turns out I was wrong. Dictionary.com defines the word several as: “being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind.” (That’s bullshit. There’s a reason why the word couple means two, a few means three, a handful means five, and several means seven.) Anyway, we’re back to FEMA technically recommending three days of supplies, lol.

Interestingly, the extended answer to my question above, is it outdated, mentioned that “Disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes have demonstrated that communities may face disruptions lasting weeks or longer, especially in cases where infrastructure is significantly damaged” and that “Events like Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and wildfires in the Western U.S. showed that supply chains and rescue operations could be delayed far beyond three days.” Yeah, I’d say that’s a reasonable conclusion.

Curious, I asked, “Why does it [the three-day recommendation] continue to be repeated?” I got the following:

Simplicity and Accessibility:

• A three-day recommendation may feel less daunting and more achievable for the general public than asking people to prepare for weeks. It serves as a starting point.

Institutional Inertia:

• Changing official guidelines requires significant policy review, public education campaigns, and updates to materials.

Adaptability:

• FEMA often emphasizes that the 3-day supply is a baseline and encourages people in disaster-prone areas to consider longer periods of self-sufficiency based on their specific risks.

Awareness vs. Perfection:

• By sticking to the three-day message, FEMA ensures the public is doing something, even if more preparation would be ideal.

Alright, I get that preparing for more than three days may feel daunting, but it’s your very survival at stake! I mean, c’mon people! You can do better, especially when it comes to water, food, and even medications. As for changing official guidelines, that’s total B.S. We spend so much money on other crap that we can spend a few grand to update brochures and websites. Ugh.

Anyway, the moral of the story is to never trust the government … I mean, never trust AI … I meant, never trust anyone but yourself because only YOU truly cares about what happens to you and yours.