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.

Biotech / Medical : SARS and Avian Flu -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1833)	11/30/2004 9:35:09 PM
From: abuelita	Respond to of 4232

The potential scale of the catastrophe compared with the relatively trivial damage done be terrorists shows how out of proportion official reaction is to the two dangers. indeed.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1833)	11/30/2004 9:48:50 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4232

<"That estimate is unscientific, unjustified and an inaccurate extrapolation from the current situation," Dr. Stöhr said.> At least the only time that I was "gloomy" was last night. In the printed edition, the gloom was gone. The "estimate" was simply taking 70% of the 1.5-2 Billion infections, which was WHO's number (1/4 to 1/3 of the world's population), not mine.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1833)	12/1/2004 2:27:56 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4232

RE: "The potential scale of the catastrophe compared with the relatively trivial damage done be terrorists shows how out of proportion official reaction is to the two dangers. " Very well said. It would help if Congress got their priorities right. The flu could kill millions in our country. I remember doing a Sars death estimate - the way Dr. Niman does it - which is the correct way. CDC wrongly claimed it was 5% (their figure turned out to be totally wrong by a factor of 3X's). I remember telling a friend of mine about my calculation on the Sars death rate and he countered with, "but CDC claims the death rate is much lower than that." People are now just beginning to learn how CDC's death rates lack credibility. CDC and WHO are like FDA - you can't trust them to keep you safe and they will always pooh pooh the information. A death rate figure is simple math - CDC shouldn't be misleading people by doing the calculation incorrectly, but they choose to do the calculation in a way that completely understates the death rate. Really bad math and it fosters bad credibility. The way Henry does the calculation is very accurate: siliconinvestor.com "All you had to do is take the number dead and divide by the number dead and discharge." Meanwhile, CDC's death rate calculation wrongly assumed anyone still in the hospital would live - which is a totally wrong assumption. Many of those people eventually died, causing the death rate to be 15%, not 5% as CDC had wrongly stated. I think CDC needs to owe up to their 300% error and realize their method of calculating the death rate is plain wrong. Of course, it does help them minimize the problem. That is, until they lose their credibility. I will never trust another death rate figure from CDC ever again. I will do the math myself or ask Dr. Niman for the estimate. Regards, Amy J