Replies

And I'm saying that "ineffective" isn't ineffective if you happen to be one who didn't catch the bug on September 29, 2003, or the guy he would have caught it from on October 3, because of care taken by the Feds (even though it wouldn't make a difference to some other poor guy). Epidemeology is a numbers game, among other things, is it not?

If this turns out to be a case of sniffles and a light fever, that's one thing, but a hazard to the lives of the infirm, elderly, and youth is a problem.

And you're wrong. I've asked numerous questions on how this could be accomplished and the best you can answer is that it might maybe somehow possibly save one persons's life. Bulldadda. Give a straight answer to the questions:
How do we know who is a "likely candidate"?
How will we quarantine them?
How long will they be quarantined?
How will we determine they actually have SARS?

Unless you can answer those questions any "plan" you come up with is a feel good measure doomed to be 100% innefective across the board. Yes epidemeology is a numbers game, and grabbing random people with the sniffles will waste a lot of numbers and accomplish ZERO.