Posted on 04/10/2003 9:01:34 AM PDT by detsaoT
ACADEMICIAN KOLESNIKOV: THE VIRUS OF ATYPICAL PNEUMONIA HAS BEEN CREATED ARTIFICIALLY
IRKUTSK, April 10, 2003. /RIA Novosti correspondent Alexander Batalin/--The virus of atypical pneumonia has been created artificially, possibly as a bacteriological weapon, believes Sergei Kolesnikov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.
He expressed this opinion at a news conference in Irkutsk (Siberia) on Thursday.
According to him, the virus of atypical pneumonia is a synthesis of two viruses (of measles and infectious parotiditis or mumps), the natural compound of which is impossible. This can be done only in a laboratory, the academician is convinced. He also said that in creating bacteriological weapons a protective anti-viral vaccine is, as a rule, worked out at the same time. Therefore, the scientist believes, a medicine for atypical pneumonia may soon appear. He does not exclude that the spread of the virus could have begun accidentally, as a result of "an unsanctioned leakage" from a laboratory.
SARS is much more deadly than viral pneumonia, and much much more likely to put you in the hospital.
Some early mis-info on FR pointed out that hospital acquired pneumonia has a mortality rate of 9%, which was asserted to be higher than SARS. Hospital acquired pneumonia is more deadly than the pneumonia the public is generally afflicted with.
As an aside, the 4% mortality figure currently being used for SARS is computed by simply dividing the number of deaths by the number of victims. It is too soon to know how things will eventually work out, but the Hong Kong statistics are instructive. As of yesterday, Hong Kong had 970 cases. 800 were still in the hospital, some of whom will die. 142 had recovered, and 28 had died. I do not know the average length of a hospital stay, but based on the statistics it seems to be more than 2 weeks.
To say this is nothing more than a really bad cold is absurd.
Yes. They were the first candidate for SARS.
However, the U.S. CDC and the WHO now strongly believe a new virus from the coronavirus family is the culprit.
Time | Cases | Increase | Dispositon of Cases | Dead as % of cases at prior times | ||||||||||||||||||
Day | Date | New | Week | Total | Day | Week | Hospital | % | Recover | % | Dead | % | Hospital Days | Day ago | 3 Day | 5 Day | Week | 2 Week | ||||
Wed | 03/19 | 150 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Thu | 03/20 | 23 | 173 | 15.3% | ||||||||||||||||||
Fri | 03/21 | 30 | 203 | 17.3% | ||||||||||||||||||
Sat | 03/22 | 19 | 222 | 9.4% | ||||||||||||||||||
Sun | 03/23 | 25 | 247 | 11.3% | ||||||||||||||||||
Mon | 03/24 | 13 | 260 | 5.3% | ||||||||||||||||||
Tue | 03/25 | 26 | 286 | 10.0% | ||||||||||||||||||
Wed | 03/26 | 30 | 166 | 316 | 10.5% | 110.7% | Start | |||||||||||||||
Thu | 03/27 | 51 | 194 | 367 | 16.1% | 112.1% | figure | |||||||||||||||
Fri | 03/28 | 58 | 222 | 425 | 15.8% | 109.4% | of 4000 | |||||||||||||||
Sat | 03/29 | 45 | 248 | 470 | 10.6% | 111.7% | 10 | 2.1% | is a low | 2.4% | 3.2% | 3.8% | 4.5% | |||||||||
Sun | 03/30 | 60 | 283 | 530 | 12.8% | 114.6% | 13 | 2.5% | Estimate: | 2.8% | 3.5% | 4.5% | 5.3% | |||||||||
Mon | 03/31 | 80 | 350 | 610 | 15.1% | 134.6% | 15 | 2.5% | 2.8% | 3.5% | 4.7% | 5.8% | ||||||||||
Tue | 04/1 | 75 | 399 | 685 | 12.3% | 139.5% | 16 | 2.3% | 4,000 | 2.6% | 3.4% | 4.4% | 5.6% | |||||||||
Wed | 04/2 | 23 | 392 | 708 | 3.4% | 124.1% | 603 | 85.2% | 89 | 12.6% | 16 | 2.3% | 4,603 | 2.3% | 3.0% | 3.8% | 5.1% | 10.7% | ||||
Thu | 04/3 | 26 | 367 | 734 | 3.7% | 100.0% | 619 | 84.3% | 98 | 13.4% | 17 | 2.3% | 5,222 | 2.4% | 2.8% | 3.6% | 4.6% | 9.8% | ||||
Fri | 04/4 | 27 | 336 | 761 | 3.7% | 79.1% | 645 | 84.8% | 99 | 13.0% | 17 | 2.2% | 5,867 | 2.3% | 2.5% | 3.2% | 4.0% | 8.4% | ||||
Sat | 04/5 | 39 | 330 | 800 | 5.1% | 70.2% | 673 | 84.1% | 107 | 13.4% | 20 | 2.5% | 6,540 | 2.6% | 2.8% | 3.3% | 4.3% | 9.0% | ||||
Sun | 04/6 | 42 | 312 | 842 | 5.3% | 58.9% | 704 | 83.6% | 116 | 13.8% | 22 | 2.6% | 7,244 | 2.8% | 3.0% | 3.2% | 4.2% | 8.9% | ||||
Mon | 04/7 | 41 | 273 | 883 | 4.9% | 44.8% | 733 | 83.0% | 127 | 14.4% | 23 | 2.6% | 7,977 | 2.7% | 3.0% | 3.2% | 3.8% | 8.8% | ||||
Tue | 04/8 | 45 | 243 | 928 | 5.1% | 35.5% | 765 | 82.4% | 138 | 14.9% | 25 | 2.7% | 8,742 | 2.8% | 3.1% | 3.4% | 3.6% | 8.7% | ||||
Wed | 04/9 | 42 | 262 | 970 | 4.5% | 37.0% | 801 | 82.6% | 142 | 14.6% | 27 | 2.8% | 9,543 | 2.9% | 3.2% | 3.5% | 3.8% | 8.5% | ||||
Thu | 04/10 | 28 | 264 | 998 | 2.9% | 36.0% | 814 | 81.6% | 154 | 15.4% | 30 | 3.0% | 10,357 | 3.1% | 3.4% | 3.8% | 4.1% | 8.2% | ||||
Averages | 39 | 290 | 9.1% | 88.6% | 83.5% | 13.9% | 2.5% | 2.7% | 3.1% | 3.7% | 4.5% | 9.0% |
What makes you think China doesn't want some of it's side taken out? What is the China policy on having children again?
Me too.
And largley uncovered facts. Although, most are quick to "blame" the media for whipping this story into a frenzy, I would argue quite the opposite.
When, and it's not to often, I hear a report it is in a quick segment that portrays this as a problem in Asia with a low death rate.
Absolutely, China doesn't worry about losing half their population. What China does worry about is loss of investment and business. Still building military machine, check back in five years.
I would suppose that if you wanted to eliminate an enemy, you would design a biological weapon with greater than 4% lethality. Also, you would want the disease to have a short incubation/duration period; so not to flood your hospitals with the sick. The average hospital stay for this is on the order of 10 days; and then there is a substancial liklihood of permanent lung tissue damage. It's serious, but not a weapon. It's far morelikely to turn on your own troops, than the population you wish to attack. Aas your troops tend to bunk together, eat together and live together.
Ive lost the thread, could someone with better searching ability and time confirm this?
I agree.
A bio-weapon would have to hit the other guy harder than it hits you. Since China is the #1 suspect if it was man-made, and China is the hardest hit, it does not look like bio-warfare.
If this turns out to be man made, then I would suspect an accidental release of something that was being researched. The research could have been for possible weapons creation, but it could also have been for benign purposes. Either way, China would NEVER admit it was responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.