Originally posted by Cheung
good point. We don't know if a person is infectious or not before they have a raised body temperature. You can't identify them. Just like the situation with HIV infection. Many people with HIV walk around doing normal things. I can't see a difference.
HIV has been with us for many years. How it's transmitted is well understood.
although to this day we still have no cure, we know how to cope. Unless you
need blood transfusion (which should already have been screened by now), share
needles, have new *** partner(s), your risk is minimal. Again, can we proclaim we
know how SARS is spread?
It's one thing that a test is not 100% effective. It's another if the test is completelyOriginally posted by Cheung
True. No test is 100% effective. Even patients who turn up to Emergency room get sent home and reattend later (for other illnesses too). This is a fact of life. At least temperature measurement and questionnaires are simple measures, easily performed, cheap, require only a small amount of training. Look at the cost:benefit ratio.
[/B]
ineffective. In between is a wide range. Sure, the methods (questionaires, and
temperature checks) are cheap alright. But IMHO they also have questionable
effectiveness. While I've no objection to this measure, I do question the wisdom
of relying on them though.
Originally posted by Cheung
I doubt any disease in the initial stages has such a test. For example, other viruses, at the inital stages of infection, Hep B, HIV, don't show up positive tests. This expectation is too high for the technology we have at the moment.
[/B]
Well put. You already said it's in the initial stage. So, why not have a bit more
patience? It's not life imprisonment, is it?
Originally posted by Cheung
You have to be pragmatic. Would you cut down all airplane flights, sports events because of the risk of terrorism? Cancel the Olympics please, somebody....
[/B]
I believed that's exactly what happened here in U.S. immediately after 9/11.
Airports were literally shut down, albeit shortly. That's, until counter-measures
were put in place. Furthermore, traffics were cut down naturally since people
automatically cancel their non-essential travel plans.
As for Olympics, well, everything has a price/priority. No kidding. Someone
might have made a decision for you how much your life is worth. It depends
on the SARS situation as we get closer to Olympics time. Everything has its
first time, I'm NOT rejecting the possibility of someone canceling Olympics altogether,
do you? If this does happen, I believe this would be its first time in history?
Originally posted by Cheung
Do you think the health care system is as advanced as in US? Consider also the baseline education level of the population. Some patients may not even understand the questions!!
[/B]
Hmm... You lost me here. Are you talking about the questions on those
screening questionaires?
Originally posted by Cheung
Anybody can be a terrorist threat.
[/B]
This is just as saying everyone would die some day. Apparently, the insurance
company has a slightly different idea using Actuarial Science.
Originally posted by Cheung
Raymond, sorry if I sound like I disagree with a lot of things.
[/B]
You don't need to apologize. As long as we don't resort to launching personal
attacks, and just stick with "things", okay?

Originally posted by Cheung
For the WC, perhaps players arriving from affected countries are at risk. Therefore, the rationale of implementation of screening for ALL of the delegation of all countries (as I suggested earlier) during the tournament. (Possibly could pick up virus in transit). NOT quarantine. Can a person transmit the virus over a distance of 3 metres? No evidence of that either.
[/B]
But the idea of this screening is flawed... It admits the possibility of infection
among some individuals. By the time he is screened out (based on development
of symptoms), countless other may have be infected by him alone.
To play Devil's Advocate, even if we've definitive diagnostic test, as long as it's
not instantaneous, we'd have logistic nightmare. A person that gets a negative
test result may be infected after the test was conducted but before the test was
published. Hence he'd be free, by mistake.
Originally posted by Cheung
Forcefully quarantining people without evidence does more harm than good. Would you forcefully quarantine people from countries with a high rate of HIV and force them to undergo a mandatory blood test after the seroconversion period?
[/B]
Why do you keep coming back to compare with HIV? Can you please establish
the argument that this is an "apple to apple" comparison?
Originally posted by Cheung
Now, if you said this two months ago, my stance would have been different. I might have said for the WC not to go ahead, but now we have more information.
[/B]
What information?
Originally posted by Cheung
If I am not mistaken, smallpox is the only virus that has ever been succesfully eradicated by man....coronavirus is not going to be the next one. [/B]
But SARS doesn't have to be eradicated. Furthermore, is it too early to surrender?
Common cold is pretty much harmless. That may explain practically no resources
are put into research a cure for it. Given high enough a profile and financial rewards,
you could see talent emerges. Is there any intrinsic reason why we can't deal
with coronavirus? Maybe because of SARS, we end up having vaccine for Common
Cold also

Of course, act/pretend as if nothing has happened is one way to cope. But it seems
too early to fall hopeless.