You're probably more likely to die from trying any of the hundreds of
"equipment" enlargement offers I get by email each day. By the way, am I
the only one getting these? Did the word get out somehow that I'm an
appropriate target?
Actually, a 6% mortality rate from a highly infectious disease is fairly
horrific, especially since the specific fatalities seem very
random--healthy, robust people have died as well as the chronically
sickly.
If you did a statistical probability scatter chart on the RELATIVE
likelihood of infection you'd likely find anything more than 50 miles from
an infection locus for anything but airborne agents was indistinguishable
from 500 miles. It's that old "square of the distance" denominator for
point sources. All the same, if you're the one that stops the meteor, the
statistics don't matter much.
-----Original Message-----
From: Randall Young [mailto:ryoung@navcomtech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:03 AM
To: fot@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Another Perpsective On SARs Situation In Toronto From W.H.O.
> The following are excerpts from news coverage on AOL. It seems to
> suggest that the situation in Toronto is different than the CDC
> announcment in that the cases are not limited to health care workers.
Except that the CDC announcement didn't say it was limited to health care
workers. From http://www.cdc.gov/travel/other/sars_can.htm
>>>
SARS transmission in Toronto has been limited to a small number of
hospitals, households, and specific community settings. As an example of
the latter, SARS has been documented among some members of a religious
community who attended a large gathering in Toronto in late March. <<<
And for those who like to get their news from the horse's mouth, the WHO
SARS page is at http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/
But don't forget, statistically you're still more likely to die from the
'flu' than from SARS ...
Randall
|