Dr Niman's call for a revision to the mortality risk assessment procedure has fallen on deaf ears in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and at the World Health Organisation (WHO), but has been a hot topic on SARS-related internet sites and discussion groups for much of the past two weeks.
Posting on 19 April..., Dr Niman gave mortality figures for a range of locations that should shake many health officials like Mr Tukuitonga to the complacent core.
On 19 April, based on country-supplied data, Dr Niman says the actual death toll was:
Hong Kong 18.2 per cent
Canada 18.2 per cent
Singapore 13.8 per cent
Viet Nam 9.8 per cent
SARS 'in perspective':
People in Toronto have a far greater chance of dying from influenza, a car crash or smoking than they do from SARS, says Dr. Richard Schabas, who's among health professionals in the SARS trenches nearly round the clock.
Some say SARS has been blown out of proportion:
We've been here before, said Dr. Don Woods, a University of Calgary microbiologist working on a biowar vaccine under contract to the Pentagon. Every so often, maybe once a year, a new bug crops up that's enough of a mystery to public health officials around the world to inspire a full-blown outbreak of media-driven hypochondria...
I wonder, is the urge to declare "cautious optimism" ASAP with SARS fundamentally the same as the one to declare that the stock market has finally hit bottom?
I think also there's a tendency to take a very narrow perspective, and scoff at people for acting/thinking that their risk of catching SARS is far higher than it currently is. But a) their community benefits from their actions since it does reduce the rate of transmission (if you're sick and wearing a mask, you're not going to set any records for long-distance sneezing) and b) in the longer term, their perceived risk might become right on target. We don't know.
PhilB on the Agonist SARS BB:
There seems to be a general relief that the Hanoi, Toronto and Singapore outbreaks are under control (I am not convinced about HK).
These places were never the problem. The problem is China and the trend there is still up.
We have yet to see the impact of the exodus from Beijing and any spread of SARS resulting from it. The next 2 weeks will be crucial. If in 2 weeks time we are seeing less than 200 new cases a day then SARS is not getting worse and there is real hope it can be got under control. If the daily new cases are significantly higher than 200 new cases a day in 2 weeks time then we are in deep trouble.
...
Epidemics don't start out exponential. They start as linear increases with an upward bias for a period, then suddenly go exponential. [he points to these 1918 flu stats]
From the Guardian, the worst-case scenario
Millions dead. Although the disease is spreading more slowly than the Spanish flu pandemic that killed up to 50 million people in 1918, it is more lethal and may simply take longer to spread. There are two big reasons the disease could get badly out of hand: no one is immune to Sars, and there is no effective treatment...
Actors have much to teach us dept: Why are they saying a SARS vaccine will take years, when it only took Dustin Hoffman a day or so to make one from a cute monkey in Outbreak?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.