Ahem... They didn't "lie".
They just changed the definitions in order to make themselves look better.
To: EternalHope; CathyRyan; Mother Abigail; Dog Gone; Petronski; per loin; riri; flutters; ...
I wonder if the WHO has people reading our threads.
To: EternalHope
Last Thursday, Toronto said they had two cases. Now, it's somewhere in the low 30s, but they admit to 9.
I don't see any way to spin this as a minor problem.
5 posted on
05/28/2003 1:45:37 PM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: EternalHope
I just lifted this little gem from the Canadian Ministry of Health: Family members, of healthy people who are in isolation, do not need to stay home because there is no risk they can transmit SARS.
Pondering that I understand that they can't quarantine everyone. But, considering a possible >10 day incubation period we're screwed.
6 posted on
05/28/2003 3:17:27 PM PDT by
IYAAYAS
(Live free or die trying)
To: EternalHope
"In the discussion that has just happened with Health Canada, we have advised them that . . . it would be prudent for them to have a case definition that is more sensitive than the one that they have currently." Try changing the rules like that in a poker game and you'll be lucky to just get yelled at.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson