In my novel, an epidemic has killed about 200 million worldwide over the past five years.
In a world with approx 7 billion people, 200 million over five years is not a lot to be honest, especially if it's a worldwide thing. If they were all in the same location - America, central Europe, then the panic would be much greater because it's essentially the whole population gone then.
But it depends on the needs of your story - is this a disease they are trying to keep under wraps? Is there a reason? I mean, if it's a disease they don't want the public knowing about, and people are dying of it in high enough numbers to cause concern, then 40million people a year is a lot, for sure.
A handful of government agents knows that some of the survivors have psi powers. They want to create a database of survivors. Would they face trouble with patient's privacy laws?
Well, there's supposed to be doctor/patient confidentiality, but it depends on the context of your story.
Also, in the event that several hundred people suddenly died in one area, what would be emergency procedures? National guard called in, bodybags? They would want to do autopsies, but there wouldn't be near enough room in local morgues to preserve the bodies.
How big is the area? I mean, if it's a city with a million residents then that's very different to a small town of a thousand people.
Jim, for the first time in the history of mankind, I have to disagree with you. AIDS/HIV is termed a pandemic (widespread epidemic) and the death toll is just 25 million from 1981 to now. SARS only killed 775 people over two years and the WHO and all the infected countries were so panic. I think an epidemic that causes 200m lives/5 years, obviously on top of the 55m/year other deaths, will induce massive horror.
But you don't see people who died from AIDS being buried in a mass grave, do you?
The thing is, while people in general might freak out - like they did with Swine Flu the other year - for the most it's not going to have a huge, devestating effect. To use your AIDS example - that's 25 million people in 31 years, that's about 750,000 people a year (give or take, it's early and my brain is struggling). It's no doubt a MASSIVE problem. But pick an average guy off the street - how many people does he know who died of it?
This is the point where the panic should set in - if folks are faced with an illness in a very close way - a friend, a family member etc, then they are more likely to panic and worry over it. 200 million people worldwide is not really enough for everyone to know someone who has contracted the illness, to to be effected by it enough.
AIDS is interesting in the context of the point I made above about how localised the illness is - AIDS is a much bigger problem in some areas than others - so, in countries like Botswana, or Lesotho where around 25% of the adult population has AIDS it's a much bigger problem, more urgent and more troubling than in a country like Finland, where 0.03% of the population has it.
Okay, my first post wasn't very clear. By "survivors" I meant the few who had symptoms and lived, not the majority who never show symptoms even after being exposed.
Also, the hundreds who die in one area have no signs of the epidemic, or any other indication of cause of death. (It was a telepathic attack). So autopsies would be desirable.
As a side note - you should try watching the BBC series 'Survivors' - it was a 1975 series which has been remade in the last five or so years. It's about a flu-type pandemic which kills a lot of people.