Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SARS - what next? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (189)	4/20/2003 6:48:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1070

Epstein, They can't even count! For a long time they were saying the mortality was 4%. Some even saying 3%. They forgot that people get sick and THEN die. So counting dead people and giving it as a % of those infected so far does NOT give the mortality rate. Especially in the early stages of the disease expansion. I did some one minute calculations and came up with about 7% as the likely mortality rate given the rate of increase in infections and deaths to date. They are now acknowledging that the death rate is higher than they first thought. Over 5%. Well duh!! Those are the experts. If there's a $20 note lying on the ground, you might as well pick it up rather than assume it's a fake because nobody else has bothered picking it up. Maybe everybody was busy doing other things. Doctors do have to be PC. It comes with Medical Guild membership. If they can't count, they are unlikely to notice the genetic makeup of those who have got really sick or died. A while ago I was ranting about how humans and bugs use symbiotic biological warfare to propagate their DNA. I'd never thought of it before, but it's obvious. Europeans came to New Zealand [and elsewhere] and introduced new diseases to vulnerable aborigines who died in droves. It wasn't even deliberate, just as they introduced gorse, possums, stoats, rabbits and other problems in ignorance and caused great damage. There was no need for violence. Nature took care of those with the wrong DNA. Once the territory was depopulated, the bug with its host carrier could move in and take over, both being winners. Now that humans are not territorial, the damn bugs aren't helping any of us. They are just a burden. There is no advantage to my DNA in having Chinese die off. I need them to buy CDMA2000 and together we can defeat the cosmic black holes, reverse gravity, deflect incoming comets, reinvent our DNA using quantum computing and generally synergize brainpower for a better life. Of course most humans still think they are territorial, even though they are not [they are operating on ignorant instinct, trained into them over millions of years - common humanity, universality, co-operation are modern memes, still struggling to find a place]. Anti-globalisation people are the modern Luddites. Sars is like Saddam, Omar and Osama [note the a, s and r - even their spelling is similar, but the humans have the m for malevolent in their names too]. A last gasp for the eons-old way of life for humanity, of tribal war, conquest, territory, confiscation and alpha male dominance. There's no place for that stuff in the modern world. So, nominate me for the Nobel! Mqurice PS: An example of genetic warfare is sickle cells. Africans with sickle cells don't die from malaria. But it's a permanent state of war because babies have: No sickle cells = they die from malaria or A sickle cell gene = they live and resist malaria or Double sickle cell gene = they get sick from sickle cell anaemia [and I suppose die without treatment]. Resisting malaria is so important that the sickle cell people are the successful breeders, even though many get sickle cell anaemia. I think I've got that process right. Google will know if you want to check.