SARS: With Hong Kong Chart

per loin

[EternalHope]

Thanks for the table. Kinda like a cold shower.

The difference is huge. I'm not sure what to think about it. I hope I did not get my hopes up for no good reason.

The "initial onset" graph at the Hong Kong site shows a clear, and very encouraging, trend towards eventual control. I wonder if data is being manipulated?

Which also raises the question, are the Hong Kong numbers believable?

[per loin]

One way of seeing it would be that folks are sick for over a week, on average, before they go to the hospital. If so, that stretches the average length of the sickness to about a month or more.

As to believability, I'd guess that there is great pressure to minimize the epidemic, given the dire economic consequences. They've admitted that last Thursday's drop was a phony.

[per loin]

I had expected that figure to drop as time straightened out the stats. So far it has not. If it holds, YIKES! These are figures for people with excellent hospital care.

[per loin]

Too early on the curve to make a guess at a possible maximum.

[riri]

I know I am challanged and I aplogize.

But I am trying to figure chart out. What is meant by onsets. I am not understanding table...could you explain for the back of the class?

[per loin]

The Hong Kong Department of Health released a graph showing number of onsets for each day. They did not publish the numbers as well, so I estimated those from the bars on the graphs.

Visually, their graph gave the impression that the epidemic was rapidly waning to no new cases.

My chart compares the number of "onsets", which I take to be the beginning of symptoms, with the number of victims being hospitalized on the same day.It also shows the differences being the number of "onsets" and the number of hospitalizations.

[per loin]

To see that graph, go here and click on the Sars Bulletin, under Latest Information.

[riri]

aah, I see. Thanks.

Maybe I was better off in the dark.

[riri]

Thanks again...another SARS bookmark. I have had to start a new folder in my bookmarks titled SARS.

When I created it, about 2 weeks ago, I pondered if I'd ever be able to remove it and look back at this...

[EternalHope]

As far as the definition of "initial onset", Per loin is the best one to answer.

I assume that what is meant by "initial onset" is the day symptoms first appear. However, SARS is reported to worsen so rapidly that a one week gap between the first symptoms and hospitalization seems much too long.

We also do not know when SARS becomes contagious, but it is certainly no later than when symptoms appear. If there is a one week period between the onset of symptoms and hospitalization, are these patients under quarantine during this time?

Another crucial question involves hospital capacity in Hong Kong. Based on reports from doctors in Hong Kong on Monday, the city has reached its maximum capacity. Are patients being turned away, or under-diagnosed, hence leading to an apparent slowing in the rate of growth in cases?

[TD911]

From Today's NY POST

FOOLISH SARS SECRECY

---

April 17, 2003 -- SARS has come to New York.

The city Health Department yesterday reported that three new cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome have been diagnosed within the five boroughs, all in people who'd been traveling abroad in areas where SARS is prevalent.

That brings the total number of city cases to 10; another 15 have been diagnosed elsewhere in the state, and of those only two are hospitalized.

But city officials, citing "patient confidentiality," refuse to disclose anything else about the local cases - not even where the patients are located.

We don't understand this information clampdown, particularly since the state Health Department's Web site lists each upstate patient's location and condition.

Officials justify their closed-mouth approach by saying that there's no danger to New Yorkers, since none of the patients contracted the disease here.

But how do they know that for certain?

They don't.

The rapid onset of this disease, combined with the lack of real information about the virus that causes it, is legitimate cause for concern.

Disclosing the location of SARS patients needn't cause undue alarm. But creating the impression that there's something to hide could do just that.

It's in the public interest for officials to disclose as much as they know.

As soon as they know it.

[per loin]

Years ago, the Health Department would place a "Quarantine" sign on the front door of a residence. I find that a more sensible method than secrecy.

[riri]

I just sent off an to my county department of health asking for follow up on our reported suspected SARS case here in Phoenix. I told them absence of information leads to rumors. We'll see if I get a response.

Well, I am off to the ballgame, if you can believe that. See you all later.

[riri]

that's an email, I sent off an email. Yeesh.

[AD from SpringBay]

From here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5215a2.htm

I got the following:

During November 1, 2002--April 16, 2003, a total of 3,293 SARS cases were reported to WHO from 22 countries, including the United States; 159 deaths (case-fatality proportion: 4.8%) have been reported (1). WHO-defined areas where local chains of transmission have been identified include regions of China (Beijing; Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and Guangdong, Shanxi, and Taiwan provinces), Singapore, Vietnam (Hanoi), Canada (Toronto), United Kingdom (London), and the United States (2). Taiwan province, London, and the United States are considered by WHO to be areas with limited local transmission (i.e., no reported transmission other than close person-to-person contact with a known SARS patient).

[riri]

SARS Virus is Mutating Fears Doctors

[SauronOfMordor]

I had expected that figure to drop as time straightened out the stats.

If anything, the average death rate is increasing. The average for last 7 days is 118 recoveries, 35 deaths, death rate 23%

[aristeides]

U.S. Reclassifies SARS Cases, Number Drops.

[EternalHope]

This just in:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States changed the way it classifies patients with the deadly respiratory virus SARS on Thursday, and said the number of probable cases dropped to 35 from 208.

From the time Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome reached U.S. shores in March the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) has used a broader definition than other countries in a bid to catch anyone who might spread the disease.

But CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said this was confusing people. "I think we did cast a very wide net early on. We know that we have more people in the net than truly have SARS," she told a news briefing.

My Note: The over-broad definition the U.S. was using was leading a lot of people in the U.S. to conclude that the disease was somehow milder in the U.S.

[aristeides]

Goa SARS case may be a false alarm.