"Super-Pneumonia" or Super Scare?

"It is the worst medical disaster I have ever seen," the Dean of Medicine at the Chinese University in Hong Kong told a prominent Asian newspaper. This irresistible quote was then shot 'round the world by other media, seeking desperately to hype the "mysterious killer pneumonia" or "super-pneumonia." But a bit of knowledge and perspective will kill this panic.

Start with those scary tags. "Mysterious" in modern medicine usually means we haven't yet quite identified the cause, although it appears we have now done so here. What's been officially named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) appears to be one or more strains of coronavirus, commonly associated with colds.

"Killer pneumonia" is practically a redundancy, since so many types of pneumonia (there are over 50) do kill.

The real questions are: How lethal, how transmissible, and how treatable is this strain? And the answers leave no grounds for excitement, much less panic. Super?

At this writing, SARS appears to have killed 49 people out of 1323 afflicted according to the World Health Organization, a death rate of less than four percent. In Hong Kong, that alleged "worst medical disaster" has killed ten people out of 316 known victims. But since this only takes into account those ill enough to seek medical help, the actual ratio of deaths to infections is certainly far less.

In contrast, the 1918-1919 flu pandemic killed approximately a third of the 60 million afflicted.

Further, virtually all of the deaths have been in countries with horrendous health care, primarily mainland China. In the U.S., 40 people have been hospitalized with SARS. Deaths? Zero.

Each year millions of Americans alone contract the flu. Compare that with those 40 SARS cases and – well – you can't compare them. Further evidence that SARS is hard to catch is that health care workers and family members of victims are by far the most likely to become afflicted.

"There are few drugs and no vaccines to fight this pathogen," one wire service panted breathlessly. But there are also few drugs to fight any type of viral pneumonia, because we have very few antiviral medicines. Nevertheless, more become available each year and one of the oldest, ribavirin, appears effective against SARS.

But an added feature to this scare is the cottage industry that's grown up around so-called "emerging infectious diseases." Some diseases truly fit the bill, with AIDS the classic example. Others, like West Nile Virus in North America, are new to a given area.

But there's fame, fortune, and big budgets in sounding the "emerging infection" alarm and warning of our terrible folly in being unprepared. The classic example is Ebola virus, which is terribly hard to catch, remains in Africa where it's always been, is now usually non-fatal, and – despite what reporters love to relate – does not turn the victims' internal organs "into mush."

Yet you'd almost swear that every outbreak of Ebola in Africa is actually taking place in Chicago. Laurie Garrett rode Ebola onto the bestseller list and talk show circuit with her book The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World out of Balance.

Since then, the U.S. government and various universities have also seen these faux plagues as budget boosters. The CDC publishes a journal called Emerging Infectious Diseases, though in any given issue it's hard to find an illness that actually fits the definition.

The U.S. Institute of Medicine just issued a report warning that we're grossly unprepared to deal with emerging pathogens. Soothingly, however, it adds that it's nothing that an injection of lots of tax dollars can't cure.

Meanwhile, a disease that emerged eons ago called malaria kills up to 2.7 million people yearly. Another, tuberculosis, kills perhaps three million more. Both afflict Americans, albeit at very low rates.

The big money and headlines may be in the so-called "emerging diseases," but the cataclysmic illnesses come from the same old (read: boring) killers. In fact, there may no fatal illness that will cause fewer deaths this year than SARS.

This is one of the stupidest articles I have ever seen. To say the author got his facts wrong is the understatement of the year (which takes a lot).

At the risk of completely wasting time, here are a few of his ridiculous mistakes:

As of yesterday the world consensus began to shift towards a new variant of virus from the coronavirus family. The virus itself still has not been found, and some labs still lean in other directions.

How lethal, how transmissible, and how treatable is this strain? And the answers leave no grounds for excitement, much less panic. Super?

This statement is so ignorant his editor should fire the reporter. The vast majority of the infected people are still in the hospital. About 10% require ventilators to survive. Many of those on ventilators will die.

To state the obvious, the "death rate" cannot be computed simply by dividing the number of deaths, so far, by the number of infected victims. As of a couple of days ago (the last published statistics I have seen), more people had died than had been released from the hospital. The majority of those on ventilators were expected to die.

To make the point simply enough for cretin reporters, take an example: Assume a bomb goes off in a room with 100 people. Three people are killed instantly and the rest survive long enough to be taken to the hospital. Many of them are in critical condition. To say the bomb killed 3% of its victims at this point would be considered utterly stupid. This reporter is utterly stupid.

In contrast, the 1918-1919 flu pandemic killed approximately a third of the 60 million afflicted.

More stupidity. This pandemic killed around 20 million people all right, but that was only 3% of those afflicted. Apparently this reporter is too stupid to know the difference between 3% and 1/3. Send him back to school for remedial math.

Further, virtually all of the deaths have been in countries with horrendous health care, primarily mainland China. In the U.S., 40 people have been hospitalized with SARS. Deaths? Zero.

This comment is so stupid it leaves me wondering what planet this guy came from. Hong Kong has primitive health care? Toronto? Singapore?

Which leads to the next part of his idiocy: The disease has just gotten to the U.S. If I just got sick but am still alive, does that prove it will not kill me? He seems to think so.

Transmissibility?

This guy is really on a role. One of the reasons for so much concern is precisely BECAUSE so many health care workers have been infected. They find they must take extraordinary precautions in order NOT to become infected.

What a total idiot. Extraordinary precautions must be taken to avoid infection, and that proves it is not very infectious?

Treatability?

If he had a brain, he would look at what has been done to actually treat the victims. He would find that literally every known treatment has been tried, and that SARS responds to NONE of them. He would also learn that some hospitals report that a cocktail of anti-viral drugs combined with steroids seem to help if treatment is started early enough. However, this treatment protocol is not proven to actually help. Instead, it may provide comfort relief and protection against secondary infection, but not attack the SARS virus at all.

So why all the fuss over this one strain of pneumonia?

First, never ignore the obvious: It does sell papers.

Ah.. Now we see. The greedy capitalists want to sell more papers, but this intrepid reporter sees right through them.

Gimme a break. This reporter should be forced to work at Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong. Then he should be fired.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.