[larrysav]

Super? At this writing, SARS appears to have killed 49 people out of 1,323 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 10 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

The Spanish flu may have killed a third of the victims that were hospitalized or bedridden. Many more may have simply fought it off. The actual mortality of the Spanish flu is thought to be about 2.5%. SARS mortality may be less than the current 3.7% rate for the same reason.

I don't think Mr. Fumento's attitude is helpful. The flu kills the young and elderly and immune-compromised. This virus, as did the Spanish flu in 1918, afflicts very healthy people in their prime.

Regarding SARS virulence, many of the current index cases of SARS were infected by simply staying on the same hotel rooom floor as a sick doctor. We don't know how virulent SARS would be if the victims are ambulatory.

Even with strong infection controls in Singapore and Toronto (not medical backwaters), cases are increasing. There are even early reports of community-acquired cases, cases that are not directly connected to the known index cases.

It bears watching and Fumento's complacence is not warranted.

[FITZ]

Regarding SARS virulence, many of the current index cases of SARS were infected by simply staying on the same hotel rooom floor as a sick doctor.

Breathing recycled air isn't safe ---it seems like we should go back to opening windows and trying to breathe fresh outside air.