Posted on 04/23/2003 5:53:43 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
SARS BUG DEADLIER THAN AIDS SAYS DOC Apr 24 2003
A LEADING doctor has warned the SARS virus could be more devastating than AIDS.
Dr Patrick Dickson called on world governments to act to stamp out the threat from the deadly respiratory illness.
Dr Dixon, one of Europe's experts on predicting global trends, said it could be more dangerous than AIDS because of its ability to spread quickly.
He said: "It is worth remembering that AIDS has infected 80 million people so far over 15 to 20 years.
"AIDS spreads slowly so we can track it and plan for it. We have effective anti- viral drugs which can prolong life.
"But this is different, we don't have the time. This is a far more serious epidemic potentially than AIDS."
Dr Dixon said his main concern was rural, isolated areas in China and around the world.
He added: "In a country like India, which is chaotic with minimum health provision, the potential for spreading the virus is huge."
Dr Dixon, a fellow at the Centre for Management Development at London Business School, said if current trends continued, there could be a billion cases within 60 weeks.
He has called on world leaders to address the problem as a matter of "national security".
The Government yesterday advised Britons not to travel to Toronto, Hong Kong and the Chinese provinces of Guangdong, Beijing and Shanxi because of SARS.
Toronto is the first location outside Asia added to the list.
Many do pay from their own pockets...The post I was responding to was claiming that only the very wealthy can pay for AIDS drugs.
But of course health insurance pays for most of these drugs, which is also true of drugs for many other conditions which cost thousands of dollars a year to treat.
Everyone pays, in the form of higher insurance or taxes.
When it comes to the health of productive individuals the cost of the drugs is much less than costs for hospitalization and drugs for those who become ill.
Studies have shown that AIDS drugs are more cost- effective than customary treatments for several other diseases.
Meanwhile, people with AIDS can keep giving it to other people. I mean, who gives AIDS to people - those with AIDS or those without AIDS???
So what is your point? When it comes to those with diseases that can infect others..the goal is to have them die as soon as possible?
The virus that causes SARS has been isolated and proven to cause the disease.
If by "old fashioned pneumonia" you mean the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae, once named Diplococcus pneumoniae, then it could be easily cured, because, with rare exceptions, most bacteria are suseptible to antibiotics. Viruses in the main, however, are not suseptible to common antibiotics, or even the few anti-viral drugs that exist.
Still, I believe our sanitation with isolation for cases will keep SARS in check in the U.S., as this virus is not "highly" contagious, despite the hype.
It's also helpful that we don't have as many travelers to communist countries as socialist Canada has.
So the AIDS people are jealous of the SARS people.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
When health officials are sounding all kinds of warning bells, but a guy who is seen as a leading figure in the fight against AIDS blatantly downplays the threat of SARS, I'd say that there's a good chance that it's being done for political reasons.
Or perhaps it to reassure a community that's already afflicted by more than it's share of infirmities....and is probably more vulnerable to SARS than others?
Perhaps you are being a bit cynical to see this as people with diseases competing for more attention and funds? I hope so.
Now a question for you: What did you mean when you asked whether I thought you should be offended because it came from a gay website? I really do not understand your point.
I didn't mean anything more than I said.
What you quoted sounded like a hopeful outlook amid the panic over SARS.
I was just asking you why we should look for a more cynical ulterior motive...just because it came from a gay organization?
What is the virus? And is it found in 100% of the SARS cases? 99% is not good enough. In fact 100% is not good enough. You have to prove causality. Has it been proven? If so, how?
Of course not. Does it give you the jollies to imagine that everyone who thinks homosexual behavior is not normal is a cruel person who wants others to die? Do you then feel more self-righteous, to think others are evil?
I have two points - first, is that AIDS drugs are often way more expensive than other drugs. It's thousands of dollars a month, last I heard and I can't imagine anyone pays for them out of pocket.
Second, because AIDS is primarily a disease that people conract through behavior that they choose to engage in, why should I or others pay for it? Since the huge majority of AIDS cases are directly or very slightly indirectly caused by men having sex with men, or intravenous drug users, or prostitution, why should I have to pay more? People who have AIDS keep giving it to others. What quarantine for them?
"Im not sure thats real great news. Apologies for sounding so heartless but: The ability to hang around for 15 years, potentially infecting more people, is the downside view."
Oh..so when it comes to those who contract diseases that could potentially infect others...the sooner they die the better.
You're right..that is heartless.No disagreement from me. Yes it is heartless. The disease, I mean. The realities of it are terrible. And one of those realities is that the longer a person with it survives, the longer the potential for infecting others. Im not preaching involuntary confinement (like Cuba), or even social segregation, but we do need to face facts. Im certainly not hoping for early death for anyone, but the facts are the facts. "Sooner they die the better"? Those were not my words or thoughts but yes, the fact is, it would be better from the disease transmission point of view. Not from the humanitarian point of view. A fatal communicative disease that kills in hours doesnt get spread as far or as fast as one that kills in years. Odd how morality so often becomes not a choice between good and bad, but a choice between bad and worse.
Wow it kills 5 people who don't have it for every person who does have it. Now that's a nasty bug.
What is the url for that board? I would be interested in reading it. Is it in English?
Of course not. Does it give you the jollies to imagine that everyone who thinks homosexual behavior is not normal is a cruel person who wants others to die? Do you then feel more self-righteous, to think others are evil?
Huh? Where did you get the idea I imagine everyone who "thinks homosexual behavior is not normal" is "cruel" or "evil"?
I happen to share the veiw that homosexuality is not normal.
You are getting way too defensive.
The fact is, I presented an argument that as costly as AIDS drugs are, they are in many cases more cost effective than treating other conditions, and keep many as productive contributing members of society.
Your response was "Meanwhile, people with AIDS can keep giving it to other people."
Now go read my response again.
Is the goal therefore to have them die as soon as possible?
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.