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: Henry Niman who wrote (774)	9/28/2003 5:42:10 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1070

You're correct that the sample was small, but it's intriguing, especially in light of the epidemiology. I don't think anybody is saying genetics is the "key" - I am not aware of any allele that inexorably leads to disease or invariably protects from disease. Still, you can't deny that there are genetic components to some diseases. I suppose there are potential problems with it - irrational fear of Chinese people, especially Hakka and other southern Chinese, non-southern Chinese deciding that they don't need to take precautions because they are naturally immune. But look at history. We all know that the Native Americans were highly susceptible to smallpox but I don't think non-Native Americans felt immune and failed to take precautions.

To: Henry Niman who wrote (774)	9/28/2003 6:09:26 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1070

Henry, I don't have any particular hypothesis I'm trying to prove. I not trying to squeeze data into an idea that it's all the Chinese fault. I'm looking at the data available and trying to figure out what it all means, how people will be affected and what I should do to look after me and mine. While the 'experts' were talking about 4% or maybe 2% death rate, I was calculating maybe 10% but probably 7% based on small early samples. I find my observational abilities hold me in pretty good stead compared with medical experts who tend to be wrong for various reasons. In countries other than Singapore, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, and Toronto, there were 67 recovered cases and there were only two deaths [one in France and one in South Africa] at 7 August. That's a 3% rate. who.int Hmm, I see they have shuffled the numbers considerably: who.int including adjusting Taiwan's death rate dramatically down. Taiwan, Canada, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia were disaster areas [though the Thailand and Malaysia numbers were so low that one case made a big difference so although they were in keeping with the other figures, a single case isn't exactly major evidence]. Vietnam had only an 8% death rate. Which is still nearly 3 x that of the rest of the world. For some reason, the south east Asian region suffered high losses. Maybe it was case definition or some other reason. But the numbers are sufficient to show that there's something different there than in the 3% mortality rest of the world. Either the epidemiologists can't count, can't define cases or maybe the people in the area are susceptible to death from sars. Perhaps case definition is the problem. But what of the many Toronto cases? Why such a high death rate? Were there disproportionately south east Asian, old people or some other category? A rest of the world 3% death rate compared with a south east Asian 10% to 17% death rate, is a huge difference. Then there's Toronto, with a high death rate of 17% and 251 cases, which is enough to get a good guide to who is vulnerable. Old sick people are seriously in trouble. Even not so old, not sick people are in trouble. Young people aren't. But what other factors correlated with death compared with those who didn't die? Why did Canada have a south east Asian death rate of 17% compared with the rest of the world death rate of only 3%? There's something that was going on that was different. Very, very different. Even compared with the USA, right next door, which had nobody die of 29 cases. Something is going on which epidemiologists need to explain. Given the case adjustments which have been made, there is obviously some discrepancy in definition of sars. On gender differences, it's noticeable that the "rest of the world" males caught more sars than women did, but in the east Asian realm it's mostly women catching it. Theories welcome, Mqurice