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.
I have the same question.
Quotes like this one from a news conference today indicate Hong Kong has a real problem:
"I am afraid that if more hospital staff get infected, the entire health care system would collapse," Peter Wong, a spokesman for three major nurse unions, told a news conference. He said Hong Kong government hospitals were not providing staff with adequate protective gear.
I'm not saying this guy is right, but asking this question is like saying that we should use a 9 megaton B-53 bomb in place of a hand grenade.
Even bio-weapons have specific objectives.
China would be my guess, since that is where the first cases seem to have developed.
* who was the original target?
If it was Chinese in origin and if it was developed as a weapon, then Taiwan would be a safe assumption. When they make something for U.S. consumption, they won't do it piecemeal.
* deliberate or accidental release?
Accidental. IMO, most countries that develope these things know that using them can backfire on them in a big hurry.
What would be REALLY interesting is if they can cook up a biological equivalent of a binary weapon. This is where you have virus A and virus B...either of which is harmless by themselves. But if someone who has virus A in their system is exposed to virus B, then the interaction between them produces virus C, which is hidiously leathal. Doing this with a virus, while scientifically interesting, would not likely have any benefit other than making it hard to trace it's origin, since this could also backfire. Usually they just do this with poisons instead...much easier to contain the "splatter."
Peking duck is off the menu, I guess.
And 28 / (142+28) is 16%.
Yup. But you gotta whisper stuff like that.
I did that same calculation a few weeks back and had a bunch of freepers accusing me of basic stupidity. Seems they thought you should simply divide the total number of deaths by the total number of cases. I never did get through to 'em.
Another point the "this is no big deal" crowd often make is that we don't know how many people get sick, but not sick enough to go to the doctor. The contention is that if the mild cases were included we would see that this is not really that bad.
Only thing is, the initial outbreak at Prince of Wales Hospital does not support this contention at all. Almost none of the staff got only mildly sick. They either clearly had it, or they didn't. The same observation holds pretty much everywhere (except in the U.S.).
NOTE: In defense of the "many mild cases" crowd, we do not have a way to test people who do not show symptoms. Hence, many people may be getting mildly sick, but not enough to realize it.
The only place on earth that has shown any sign of many mild cases is the U.S. However, the U.S. has chosen to err on the side of caution. We have chosen to use such a broad definition of SARS they almost anyone with a cold and a history of travel to SE Asia is considered a "possible" SARS victim. Not surprisingly, most U.S. cases are mild.
The final "interesting" point is that the death rate right now is predicated on good medical care for everyone who needs it. SARS seems to be putting around 80% of its victims in the hospital (other than in the U.S.). What happens if/when the medical system gets overwhelmed?
With a 4% kill rate, SARS is a serious problem, especially due to its contagious nature. THe Spanish flue had the same level of kill rate and contagion and it killed 40 million worldwide in its 8 month streak. Sars could kill 200 million. It is an economic weapon.
What eventually makes something like this die out on it's own? It would seem it could just keep going on and on as long as it had peple to infect. Is there another factor that eventually "burns" these things out?
Excerpt from: SARS Outbreak 'Grave,' China Leader Says
Nothing chimney sweeps couldn't handle...
--Boris
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.