HK SARS deaths reach new high

CNN Asia ^ | 4.18.03

[Psycho_Bunny]

I know....I was talking about the headline.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I know....the sloppy headline was what I was talking about.

[blam]

"How many permutations on a virus do you suppose MOTHER NATURE comes up with on her own out there in the 'backwoods' of China where man, animal, chicken, pig, etc, exist in *close* proximity under less than ideal sanitary conditions?"

You mean like the one below. We thought we were done with this 'bird flu' years ago.

From Today's News: Independent (UK)

"* A Dutch vet became the first human victim linked to the "bird flu" epidemic sweeping through Holland's poultry industry. The vet died of pneumonia after being infected by the virus which, although rarely transmitted to humans, killed six people in Hong Kong after emerging in 1997."

[per loin]

[per loin]

Note that the updated chart that I posted above has the same trail off at the most recent dates as the one you posted. This trail off is an artifact of the lag between onset and reporting of onset. That is why the right end of onset charts must be viewed sceptically.

[per loin]

And now note what a chart showing probable cases by date of report looks like:

[_Jim]

Here's an onset chart that should be a little more reliable - it shows the peak back on the 9th of February.

[_Jim]

Re: post #46 - did you see the fine print?

[per loin]

Do you believe what you are posting?

[_Jim]

I gotta knock off for the evening - nite all!

[per loin]

Certainly did.

[per loin]

If you look closely at the more recent onset chart that I posted in #44, you will notice that the chart that you posted in #47 is incorporated into the leftish end of the chart in #44.

[Judith Anne]

I keep hearing that the worldwide death total is 182 or 183. It has to be higher than that now, doesn't it? Just off the top of your head, do you know the actual reported total of deaths worldwide?

[per loin]

182 is the last figure I've seen from WHO.

[First Amendment]

I am a lurker on these SARS threads - and I appreciate the work of everyone here to post all the information. I am curious about this Jim fellow and why he wants to badly for SARS to be winding down. What is your take on his attitude, and is it at all justified in your opinion? - thanks!

[per loin]

I think it useful to have someone playing devil's advocate, but that role ought be played with honesty and integrity to be played well. As for his wants and motivations, it would be best to ask him.

[Axenolith]

Know what? It doesn't...

SURE it can be and is meaningful - IF a random selection are 'culled' from the group - or a process excludes a certain random (BASED on no criteria which otherwise skew the result) part of the population from consideration in the first place.

Well, there sure as heck appears to be not much in the way of randomness per that footnote at the bottom. If it was truly a "random" cull then the entire population would be run through some type of bootstrap resampling method to insure the degree of randomness.

It's called 'sampling' and it's done all the time in a multitude of fields from semiconductors testing to medicine ...

Yea, and "sampling" is done to massage results or come up with desired plots. It's a weak histogram. A sampling scheme with an iota of respectability would strive to retain the largest viable block of the population in question, not the exact opposite.

Also, the "sampling" you cite for medicine or semiconductors QA\QC is totally different from a statistical analysis designed to project a rate of increase in infection and mortality based upon the onset, population and death toll of an infectious disease.

[ET(end tyranny)]

In this article from MSNBC -- 12 New SARS deaths in Hong Kong, towards the bottom, there is a chart.

Take a look at the top 6 countries. Do you notice anything odd, or makes you go hmmmm???

[ET(end tyranny)]

I'll make it easier....

Full Chart Below

.
.
.

[Axenolith]

After viewing the other half dozen posted histograms I think I'll hold judgement on this for another couple of months at least.

One of the problems inherent in this disease is the fact that you probably have quite a few victims who don't get particularly ill, or attribute it to a strong cold etc... and don't get isolated but do spread it. The initial few months stats for projection purposes are probably going to look like crap, or have 10 different versions. IMO, those charts are basically good for cherry picking out the rosy ones.