If lots of people were infected and not counted and didn't suffer pneumonia then the death rate of those infected must actually be more like 7% than the current 10% of all cases [with wild variability from Taiwan at 25%, based on questionable numbers, to 0% in the USA where there were sufficient cases to demonstrate a low death rate].
Of the human population, most people would become infected judging by how easily it's propagated, so there would be a global death rate of about 7%.
But maybe not. As each sars season comes and goes and with strong antisars action by people [such as no kissing, no sneezing in public, no eating in restaurants or other places where somebody has their face over the food, wearing N95% masks, avoiding crowds, hospitals] maybe the propagation rate would be quite slow. As more people develop immunity, it would propagate more slowly and have less impact on their health each time around [with new variants to which people have limited immunity].
But even half that, or only 1% of the world, would still have a large psychological and economic impact. Old people would suffer disproportionately.
The silver linings would be less of other infections too, reduced health care expense for old people [who will have died] which is of course only a silver lining for those not affected by the deaths and who would otherwise have to pay via taxation. Maybe sars is an evil plot by governments worried about meeting old age pension payments and supplying health care to the decaying baby boomers. Involuntary euthanasia.
So much for my hopes that sars was killed off and won't be back.
Mqurice
PS: If 7% ends up the right figure, I hereby claim to be the first person to have correctly identified the mortality rate. |
