From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 16:28:38 MDT
Robert Bradbury pointed out that this article was 15 days old at the time I
posted it. When considering the authors comments, take that into account.
I think not worrying about serious threats is as unextropic as worrying too
much about non-serious ones. The difficulty is finding that balance. This
article was presented in an effort to help maintain a balance, we know very
well how much our culture is obsessed with the next thing that will kill us
all (except for many things that actually could) and how much the media
panders to that.
Michael Dickey
>
>
> "Super-Pneumonia" or Super Scare?
> By Michael Fumento
> Scripps Howard News Service, March 26, 2003
> Copyright 2003 Scripps Howard News Service
>
> from - http://www.fumento.com/disease/sars.html
>
> Excerpt -
>
> "It is the worst medical disaster I have ever seen," the Dean of
> Medicine at
> the Chinese University in Hong Kong told a prominent Asian newspaper. This
> irresistible quote was then shot 'round the world by other media, seeking
> desperately to hype the "mysterious killer pneumonia" or
> "super-pneumonia."
> But a bit of knowledge and perspective will kill this panic.
>
> Start with those scary tags. "Mysterious" in modern medicine usually means
> we haven't yet quite identified the cause, although it appears we have now
> done so here. What's been officially named Severe Acute
> Respiratory Syndrome
> (SARS) appears to be one or more strains of coronavirus, commonly
> associated
> with colds.
>
> "Killer pneumonia" is practically a redundancy, since so many types of
> pneumonia (there are over 50) do kill.
>
> The real questions are: How lethal, how transmissible, and how
> treatable is
> this strain? And the answers leave no grounds for excitement, much less
> panic. Super?
>
> At this writing, SARS appears to have killed 49 people out of
> 1323 afflicted
> according to the World Health Organization, a death rate of less than four
> percent. In Hong Kong, that alleged "worst medical disaster" has
> killed ten
> people out of 316 known victims. But since this only takes into account
> those ill enough to seek medical help, the actual ratio of deaths to
> infections is certainly far less.
>
> - end excerpt
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 16:20:00 MDT