How world let virus spread A tale of mistakes, missed opportunities, near misses

To: CathyRyan; Domestic Church; per loin; aristeides

from ProMed, regarding the testing for SARS:

"Unlike [influenza] virus, which has been studied for decades, SARS is
so new that little is known about its infectious course. So, as the
first SARS diagnostic tests are used, we will also be learning how to
use them wisely. For example, while a positive SARS-PCR result from
the sputum of a sick patient very likely means he has SARS, a
negative result may simply mean that we missed a window of viral
shedding. Therefore, a single negative test does not mean that the
person is disease-free. Does a positive test mean that someone is
infectious? We simply do not know. Our PCR tests detect viral nucleic
acids and cannot tell us whether the infectious particle is still
intact. So if a recovered SARS patient still excretes viral nucleic
acids in his stool, does this mean he is still infectious? And if so,
how infectious? We will need to continue the study of these
individuals as we treat them."

Further reading here tells me that the tests are not very reliable.

41 posted on 04/19/2003 6:17:45 PM PDT by Judith Anne

"What is everyone's reaction to this?"

The twilight spin zone! Welcome to the outer limits.

42 posted on 04/19/2003 6:23:42 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)

To: Domestic Church

43 posted on 04/19/2003 6:25:55 PM PDT by CathyRyan

"-how many people have been met with ER personnel wearing gowns, N95 masks, and gloves when they walked in?"

It is so obvious and so simple...why isn't that being mandated at least around a radius of each infection?

44 posted on 04/19/2003 6:26:15 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)

To: Domestic Church

Something sensible like that might cause people to panic. And we don't want panic, now, do we? After all, automobile accidents cause more deaths than SARS, right? So we shouldn't worry about SARS until it causes as many deaths as auto accidents, because that would indicate panic, right?

/sarcasm

Yes, you're right. It would be sensible.

45 posted on 04/19/2003 6:33:57 PM PDT by Judith Anne

The man in Goa seems not to have been infectious. But he did test positive.

46 posted on 04/19/2003 7:51:44 PM PDT by aristeides

Kuul. Is he a regular here?

I have no idea. I stumbled onto the page today in my adventures on the net.

47 posted on 04/19/2003 7:56:05 PM PDT by riri

We had a couple of patients on our unit today, coughing and sneezing with low grade temps. They were in the hospital for reasons totally unrelated to their coughs and sneezes. I thought to myself, "what if?" The whole staff and the patients roommates and visitors would be down with it.

48 posted on 04/19/2003 8:16:13 PM PDT by k omalley

I know exactly what you mean. There is no way of knowing which patient is going to be the one who puts us in isolation.

49 posted on 04/19/2003 9:40:15 PM PDT by Judith Anne

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794