<" The centre also said that before the patient fell ill, he had used chopsticks to try to catch a rat.>
Henry, having missed the first three days of 2004 due to cold, flu or sars or something, I'm now improved and foolishly back in the cyberoom where I suspect I was infected [because the air is so disgustingly polluted with swarms of smoking cyber-killing whacko kids].
Today I was checked for temperature at Tientsin train station and they seemed happy that I'm not a sars case. I don't think I am either.
I will avoid catching rats with my chopsticks. I presume the gentleman was attempting to catch the rat with his chopsticks to go with the rice, since civet cats are off the menu.
I don't believe he really was chasing a rat with chopsticks. That's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, thanks for providing the scientific facts on what's going on with sars.
The medical industry drives me nuts with their symptomatic approach to things. Being an engineer, [once upon a time anyway] I prefer a causal-relationships, mechanistic view of things. Test the DNA or whatever it is and it doesn't matter whether the person has had a contact or not, they have sars if the DNA or defining tests say so, and whether it was a virgin birth or some unknown mechanism is irrelevant other than to track the disease. Sort that part of it out later. In the meantime, it's definitely a baby, virgin birth or not. More likely, it's not really a virgin birth and somebody isn't saying exactly who what where when how or why it came about.
Mqurice |
