Fresh doubt cast on Sars cause

BBC ^ | April 23, 2003

[aristeides]

SARS tied to genetic engineering?.

[blam]

Did you see this post yesterday?

Dutch Bird Flu Claims First Human Victim (Not SARS)

[templar]

Somehow, this reminds me of the early days of the AIDS problem. No one knew exactly what was causing it and speculation was abundant. Trains, planes, hospitals, crowded apartment buildings seem to be where one is at high risk of contracting it: Prolonged exposure in high density environments? Could how long one is exposed to the virus (or whatever) be as much a factor as the virus itself? Avoid prolonged stays in high density areas as much as possible to minimize risk maybe?

[JunkYardFrog]

Thanks for the link.

[Beck_isright]

You are correct. I saw the CDC news conference and it was stated that it's at 5.9%. Of course that could change when the Chicoms give us honest numbers.

[ARCADIA]

I read somewhere today that the kill rate is actually up to 5.9%. Yikes.

A sensationalist media will drive us nuts every time. The 5.9% percent is overstated. It is based on fatalities/known cases, however, we have no way of knowing how many unknown cases may be occuring. For all we know millions have been infected of which only a few thousand have required medical attention.

[dawn53]

Whatever happened to the Chinese theory that it was somehow related to chlamydia?

Here is a related thread from April 6th.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886078/posts

[Eala]

Thanks for the data! Looking at the world in general (the bottom line), it looks like:

100 x (250 dead) / (250 dead + 1985 recovered) = 11.2%

(Run it the "WHO way", 100x(250 dead)/(4273 cases)=5.9%, or 100x250/(4273+250) = 5.5%)

[Eala]

For all we know millions have been infected of which only a few thousand have required medical attention.

That's a good point, but wouldn't one expect to see many "spontaneous" outbreaks in that case, instead of the localized infection centers that are occurring?

[per loin]

In Toronto, I believe that they only have one case where they cannot establish a line of transmission from the index case.

[keri]

This will interest you.

[Born to Conserve]

Actually, that's not quite right either. If people who die tend to do so early on, whereas people who "recover" tend to do so after a lengthy recooperation, that would skew the results.

What they should be doing, is only including deaths and recoveries of people who contracted the disease long ago enough that everyone in the statistics is either recovered or dead.

Follow?

[Eala]

You. You're correct.

[Eala]

LOL. Make that: "Yup. You're correct."

[Lady Heron]

Take out the suspect Chinese numbers, I think it made it somewhere neer 18% a few days ago.

[_Jim]

Read and responded to ...

[blam]

"What they should be doing, is only including deaths and recoveries of people who contracted the disease long ago enough that everyone in the statistics is either recovered or dead. "

IMO, that would be the correc way to figure the percentage.

[Allan]

I am not a 'health care worker'
but I would assume
isolation of communicable diseases is one of the basic things
that one first is taught.

Starting with ONE patient at Scarborough hospital
they managed to infect AT LEAST FIVE other hospitals
in Toronto
and surrounding suburbs
by transporting infected patients
distances as great as 30 miles.

GOOD WORK TORONTO!

Your achievement at spreading this disease is unequalled anywhere else in the world
(except, perhaps, Peking)

[riri]

It gets better than that. An infected person(s) went to the ER 3 times with all the telltale symptoms of SARS, showed concern that he thought he might have SARS, fit all or most of the criteria to have SARS and they turned him away.

[_Jim]

Where is that story documented?