Yesterday, I posted a piece making fun of Michael Fumento, who downplayed the significance of SARS. Also yesterday, as part of the Volunteer Tailgate Party, I linked a piece by manish of Damn Foreigner, who argued that SARS is not a significant threat.
Diversity is a wonderful thing, but even more wonderful is the fact that we both are correct.
How?
Well, it's a matter of perspective. My problem with Fumento is he was arguing that the reaction to the SARS outbreak was driven by greed, not any genuine concern, and that SARS was a minor problem. Manish argued that the individual has relatively litle to fear from SARS, at least right now. The two arguments don't conflict, because they are from different perspectives.
Manish argues from the individual point of view. 140 cases out of a population of 4.7 million means that the average person has little to fear. The risk is negligible.
However, from an epidemiological stand point, a virus with a mortality rate of 15% is quite serious indeed. Particularly when the virus mutates as frequently as this one does. While the variants today appear to be diffcult to transmit, that could change quickly, leading to devastation equal to the pandemic of 1918. Therefore SARS is a quite legitimate concern for the WHO and CDC.
It's all in the perspective.
Posted by Rich at April 25, 2003 1:16 PM | TrackBackRich..I read your piece about Fumento and for the most part agreed with what you had to say. However, I think stating a 15% mortality rate is a bit misleading. Though mathematically, you are correct, digging deeper shows something else.
The death toll is up to 20 (you still have a better chance of being murdered in the U.S.) and of those cases, 17 were over 60 (including one that was 99) and many had illnesses that weakened their immune systems already. If the virus had only hit 20-year olds in good shape we would be talking about how benign SARS is...though I do agree that it's definitely more lethal than the flu.
Posted by: Manish on April 27, 2003 1:06 AMSARS definitely bears watching, as does any outbreak of a new disease. The best news is that the outbreak in Canada appears to be contained. Fortunately, the early indications of easy transission haven't been born out, which makes SARS much less threatening.
I agree that the proper way to calculate mortality is deaths divided by deaths plus recoveries, rather than deaths as a percentage of total infections, since those infected but not recovered represent an unknown. This calc is the basis for the 15% figure. However, when the sample size is as small as it is, other factors, like those you mention, can skew the results.
I'm guessing overall mortality will wind up in the 8-9% range, which is significant for modern times, but as long as SARS remains relatively non contagious, will keep it from becoming the next plague.
Interestingly enough, researching the mortality rates lead me to this site which claims that AIDS and SARS are both man made viruses. Normally, I dismiss these conspiracy nuts, but in this case, it isn't quite as easy. I used to work as a field service engineer for a company that made blood chemistry analysers. I worked in a number of reference labs, and one of them was headed up by a former AIDS researcher. He talked about his work with the HIV virus, and according to him, it was common knowledge among his group that the virus was engineered. He listed several factors which lead them to that conclusion:
1. It was a retro virus, which is easier to manufacture.
2. Very delicate, requiring a narrow range of conditions to survive.
3. Mutated rapidly, indicating a certain amount of genetic instability, a hallmark of genetic manipulation.
I don't know if he was telling the truth or not, but I had no reason to doubt him at the time, and other things he told me about then have been correct. He explained that the primary vector in African AIDS was not unprotected sex, but the reuse of needles during vaccinations. This was in 1994-5 when we were hearing predictions of a heterosexual AIDS explosion, based on African infection rates. That explosion never occurred. Recently, his analysis was confirmed by a new paper which demonstrated that AIDS was much more prevalent among African children who had been immunized than those who hadn't. Naturally, the WHO, who sponsored many of the immunization programs, are disputing the claims, but the disparity between het transmission of AIDS in the US and Europe, and Africa is staggering. There must be another vector at work, which is what the lab manager told me years ago.
Based on that, I have to consider him a credible source. Make of it what you will.
Posted by: rich on April 27, 2003 1:55 AM