---

by Callum
(quotes)

None of which have anything to do with whether or not it is epidemic.

(quotes)

---

They are taking fairly drastic measures to stop an epidemic, which could arguably said is already happening.

From dictionary.com definition of "Epidemic"

"Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time: an epidemic outbreak of influenza. "

I think SARS is starting to meet that criteria.

---

Absolutely, it would be very irresponsible of him to declare the he was "confident it could be stopped" if he wasn't, but that's no reason for his comments to be spun to give the impression that he believes that it can't be stopped, or that there is only hope.

---

I admit, I havent read much of what this guy has to say, but a man in his position isnt about to say such things lightly, particularly when people seem to suggest this sort of thing is occuring all the time. I dont think the WHO is in the business of seriously damaging the tourism business of a country (say Canada) because they think it would be a good laugh.

---

large scale effective screening is not viable due to the incubation period before symptoms manifest, and should SARS become epidemic accross mainland europe screening would become effectively impossible unless we chose to completely isolate ourselves;

---

I agree, its very difficult to stop the spread - so shouldn't we at least be taking every possible measure to stop the more obvious cases, especially when those measures are easy precautions to take? (I.e. the power to hospitalise suspected cases)

---

Those that are dieing are among the traditionally vulnerable groups -- elderly, infirm, very young, etc.

---

Oh, so it's OK then because you dont belong to the affected demographic?

---

It's hardly short sightedness, it's taking a balanced position on the matter.

---

I think anyone who takes a balanced view on the position should err on the side of caution rather than take a blase view on the problem.

---

This is important given that SARS has been grabbed by the world press as some world-killing disease that could prompt the collapse of civilisation, the end of humanity, and lions laying down with lambs.

---

I haven't read any of the tabloid press on this matter, and so havent seen the views you describe. My view comes from the fact that a government (China), is taking big steps (that will hurt it economically) to contain this. Are they being paranoid?

---

The numbers are too small, and the timescale to short to do any meaningfull analysis of the rate at which the infection is spreading.

---

If China had deciced to sit around and wait for time to do some detailed studies they would be in a far worse position than they are now.

---

As an adjunct to my previous comment, I'm not aware of any statistics which indicate exponential growth.

---

According to the statistics so far: "the rate at which cases are growing is currently about 3.5% PER DAY. That means the number of cases doubles every 20 days or so. Usually, a scary rate like that doesn't persist for very long with a fatal disease. Well, so far we have been almost "spot on" as the British might say for the last 20 days." (Stats taken from a weblog)

From the same weblog:

"I said that Canada my have the situation in hand, but if I'm the WHO, I look and see that their growth rate in cases has been the same as the world average, and has doubled in the last 20 days. 140 cases in all, the vast majority started from a single chain of transmission in a single individual. In other words, with aggressive quarantine, modern facilities, a hyper-cooperative population, and every advantage really, that's what it has taken to control this."

Check out this site for some of the stats.

---

Yes, it's bad; but what's worse is the panic which seems to have gripped much of the world; like your quote says -- this is the worst crisis to have hit Asia in 5 years.

---

Panic is indeed not a sensible option - it achieves nothing and will only worsen the situation. Taking every possible action to keep this under control while remaining calm is an applaudable goal. Dimissing it as scaremongering, to me, serves about as much use as panic.

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
Your statement backs up what I said. As you say, its been around since last year, and it started with a very small number of cases. That small number grew into a handful, that handful grew into a bus full, that bus full grew into hundreds, and those hundreds grew into thousands.

I was talking about exponential (or near exponential growth), what you've said only highlights this.

If this disease which has been around since last year is so un-important, how come its increased by a from around a 1000 people a month ago to around 4000 now?

---

Its a virus of course its gonna grow 1 person infects 2, they infect another two and so on, the way the human race grows really and we kill a lot more people than SARS.

So 5.9% of cases die the rest of 94.1% survive hardly gonna wipe out the human race is it. I do find it unnecessary to worry.More people have died from influenza related complications in the last year than have even caught this bug. SARs aint got nothing on the virulence of other viruses.

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
If its so unimportant, and plainly all some media storm, why are MAJOR steps being taken by the Chinese goverment to keep it under control.

---

Since when do we start doing as the Chinese goverment do.

(Edited by JtB 28/04/2003 23:42)

I have never suggested that Sars represents a threat that will wipeout humanity, all I am suggesting is that if not controlled we will have a global pandemic, which regardless of whether you're in the target demographic or not would kill millions. If that doesn't bother you then fine, i'm flogging a dead horse.

Not really sure how your analogy about virus growth and human growth works. Besides there wouldnt be much human growth if babies were dying of SARS.

On death rate, the calculations so far have been based on number of total cases vs deaths. A better figure is the number of deaths / (# deaths + # recovered), which gives you something a much higher figure (i think it is over 12%).

Also bear in mind that current death rate is based on all those people getting intensive medicical care. As the number of cases rose people would have less and less dedicated care.

So far the overriding view seems to be "Who cares?" Yet I haven't heard any good arugument for why we shouldn't be taking measures to screen people coming into the country etc.

---

If China had deciced to sit around and wait for time to do some detailed studies they would be in a far worse position than they are now.

---

The Chinese goverment had decided to sit around doing nothing. This combined with the fact that the chinese welfare system has been severely underfunded for 20 years has been the reason for this outbreak.

Vietnam allready has the diseaso under control, so what we're seeing here is the great incompetence of the chinese goverment.

---

by Funky Monkey
Also bear in mind that current death rate is based on all those people getting intensive medicical care. As the number of cases rose people would have less and less dedicated care.

---

We're talking about china here. There's no such thing as intensive medical care for anybody but the very rich there.
Only after being put under serious pressure by the rest of the world have they started giving the proper care to all cases. (I hope, cause we're not seeing any of it in the media)

---

by Funky Monkey
So far the overriding view seems to be "Who cares?" Yet I haven't heard any good arugument for why we shouldn't be taking measures to screen people coming into the country etc.

---

Screen people for what exactly?

The good argument against it is that the cost of doing so is massively disproportionate to the risk.

Here's the thing... life is not risk free... much as the modern individual seems to want a guarantee of a long healthy existence, there is always the chance it won't happen. We can all kick the bucket in a quite fantastically varied number of ways... but we probably won't.

---

by Funky Monkey
Oh, so it's OK then because you dont belong to the affected demographic?

---

Pretty much actually yes. People die everyday for all sorts of reasons but the time to get worried is when the people who are dying are not the weakest and most vulnerable but the strong and healthy.

Just a thought, are you sure your name shouldn't be TWELVE Monkeys.

---

by Funky Monkey
They are taking fairly drastic measures to stop an epidemic, which could arguably said is already happening.

From dictionary.com definition of "Epidemic"

"Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time: an epidemic outbreak of influenza. "

I think SARS is starting to meet that criteria.

---

Yes, SARS is probably epidemic in China (not elsewhere) I have not disputed this; what I challenged was your comment " China have quarantine nearly 8000 people now, and have shut down the cities Cinemas, Theatres, Internet Cafes, and Schools. How is that not an epidemic?" and I stand by my position - just because China has reacted this way does not mean SARS is epidemic.

---

I agree, its very difficult to stop the spread - so shouldn't we at least be taking every possible measure to stop the more obvious cases, especially when those measures are easy precautions to take? (I.e. the power to hospitalise suspected cases)

---

Not if the impact of the measures is so high as to be counterproductive - yes there would be benefit in being able to quarantine people exhibiting the symptoms as they enter the country, but that does nothing to help the more serious problem - what to do regarding the infected people who will enter the country without being detected because they are not manifesting the symptoms. Whilst some screening to detect victims is of obvious benefit, we shouldn't commit substantial resources to screening at points of entry at the expense of education and response programs in-country. You need to distinguish more clearly between the work that needs doing in-country and the work that needs doing at points-of-entry.

---

Oh, so it's OK then because you dont belong to the affected demographic?

---

It's kinda tricky to responding constructively if you're going to be twisting comments so delightfully. A very substantial factor in the high (whether 5% or 10% or 15%) mortality rate is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of deaths are among the most vulnerable, the mortality rate for the "average" person is *much* lower.

---

I think anyone who takes a balanced view on the position should err on the side of caution rather than take a blase view on the problem.

---

No, if you're taking a balanced view you should take as balanced position as possible, rather than one you know to be biased. There is a significant impact of SARS beyond infection by the disease and the consequences of that. We cannot simply focus on detection, prevention and treatment of the disease itself ignoring other consequences of the outbreak such as social impact (eg fear), cost (both direct financial cost, loss of revenue, and the time-value of resources commited in one area rather than another) and infrastructural damage.

---

If China had deciced to sit around and wait for time to do some detailed studies they would be in a far worse position than they are now.

---

So what would you advocate? This was a new disease, it took time to detect it, to study and sequence it, to figure out how to respond and then to put those response plans and contingencies into place; China reaction was very fast given these circumstances, but they are also in a much worse position than other nations. We cannot pre-emptively assume that every outbreak is a potential disaster right at the start.

---

...<snip>
(Stats taken from a weblog)
...<snip>...
Check out this site for some of the stats.

---

Ignoring the reliability of your source (a weblog? why not reference the WHO reports directly?), the numbers presented there do not indicate exponential growth on anything other than a very short (statisticaly not significant) timescale.

---

Panic is indeed not a sensible option - it achieves nothing and will only worsen the situation. Taking every possible action to keep this under control while remaining calm is an applaudable goal. Dimissing it as scaremongering, to me, serves about as much use as panic.

---

But there is scaremongering, there can be no doubt about that - should it just be ignored? Shouldn't we challenge the scaremongering? The fear instilled directly by the outbreak of a disease, and the additional fears instilled by scaremongering, are one of the symptoms of the condition; and we must fight the fear-symptom of SARS as well as the pneumonia-symptom, the pneumonia-symptom affects people exposed to the SARS virus, but the fear-symptom affects people exposed to the SARS meme as well.

---

by Callum

Yes, SARS is probably epidemic in China (not elsewhere) I have not disputed this; what I challenged was your comment " China have quarantine nearly 8000 people now, and have shut down the cities Cinemas, Theatres, Internet Cafes, and Schools. How is that not an epidemic?" and I stand by my position - just because China has reacted this way does not mean SARS is epidemic.

---

Noted, but I don't see how splitting hairs over semantics is productive to a good debate. China's reaction to SARS would suggest that SARS is an epidemic in that country, this is what I was trying to say.

---

You need to distinguish more clearly between the work that needs doing in-country and the work that needs doing at points-of-entry.

---

I was never attempting to distinguish at all, all Im suggesting (and I dont think its too much to ask), is that people take the disease seriously. I mentioned air port security, because it is one measure I know of. I dont pretend to know what other measures we could take, I dont pretend to be an expert on the subject I am speaking about. All I have said is that we should take every method possible that is within reason to prevent an outbreak in this country.

---

It's kinda tricky to responding constructively if you're going to be twisting comments so delightfully.

---

Incandenza had no problem answering that one.

---

A very substantial factor in the high (whether 5% or 10% or 15%) mortality rate is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of deaths are among the most vulnerable, the mortality rate for the "average" person is *much* lower.

---

I suspect what you'll find for SARS is that it has also killed those who are not in the traditionally vunerable category. This is not just a strong flu - governments don't resort to the measures they have done for a strong flu.

---

rather than one you know to be biased.

---

Which view is known to be biased?

---

We cannot simply focus on detection, prevention and treatment of the disease itself ignoring other consequences of the outbreak such as social impact (eg fear), cost (both direct financial cost, loss of revenue, and the time-value of resources commited in one area rather than another) and infrastructural damage.

---

Without wanting to put words into your mouth it sounds like you're suggesting that we shouldnt take certain measures to prevent the disease (say advising against Travel) for economic reasons?

---

We cannot pre-emptively assume that every outbreak is a potential disaster right at the start.

---

Thats why we have the likes of the W.H.O. isnt it? Experts to give us advice on when action is neccesary. And they take the disease very seriously. Shouldn't we listen to them?

---

Ignoring the reliability of your source (a weblog? why not reference the WHO reports directly?)

---

Because I was tired.....

---

the numbers presented there do not indicate exponential growth on anything other than a very short (statisticaly not significant) timescale.

---

Well its the data we have at present, and it indicates, in my belief, that the disease should be taken seriously.

---

But there is scaremongering, there can be no doubt about that - should it just be ignored?

---

From where? Tabloid papers? So what, there is nothing you can do to change the way they report stuff other than stop buying the pap, just look at their coverage of the war.

---

and we must fight the fear-symptom of SARS as well as the pneumonia-symptom, the pneumonia-symptom affects people exposed to the SARS virus, but the fear-symptom affects people exposed to the SARS meme as well.

---

Sure, as I said, Panic isnt going to achieve anything. Neither will sticking your head in the sand.

---

by Funky Monkey
Noted, but I don't see how splitting hairs over semantics is productive to a good debate. China's reaction to SARS would suggest that SARS is an epidemic in that country, this is what I was trying to say.

---

It wasn't a semantic argument -- the impression was of circular reasoning, that there must be an epidemic because China was doing X, Y and Z.

---

All I have said is that we should take every method possible that is within reason to prevent an outbreak in this country.

---

So where should the "within reason" line be drawn? This is fundamentally an economic problem, almost everything in this space is, we have limited resources and decissions need to be made about how to commit them. I suspect that the key differences in our positions come down to economics and risk, plus of course potential gain.

---

Incandenza had no problem answering that one.

---

The problem is not with responding, but with concern over spinning of the response.

---

I suspect what you'll find for SARS is that it has also killed those who are not in the traditionally vunerable category. This is not just a strong flu - governments don't resort to the measures they have done for a strong flu.

---

I don't believe any of my comments have suggested that it dosn't kill those not in traditionally vulnerable categories? The position is simply that a disproportionately large number of those dieing are elderly/infirm/etc, and that this skews the figures.

---

Which view is known to be biased?

---

How about the one you explicitly stated - erring on the side of caution is a known-bias position; not necessarily a problem per se, but probably not an ideal one in the complex system in question.

---

Without wanting to put words into your mouth it sounds like you're suggesting that we shouldnt take certain measures to prevent the disease (say advising against Travel) for economic reasons?

---

Yes, of course. Though not the example you give, that is a perfectly sensible statement to make; this is a complex economics/OR problem and needs to be treated as such.

---

Thats why we have the likes of the W.H.O. isnt it? Experts to give us advice on when action is neccesary. And they take the disease very seriously. Shouldn't we listen to them?

---

Yes & yes. No comments I have made contest either point in any way.

---

Well its the data we have at present, and it indicates, in my belief, that the disease should be taken seriously.

---

That is a rather different position from your previous comment that those numbers indicate exponential growth. Additionally, nobody is questioning the need to take the matter seriously - be carefull that such comments are not interpreted as implicit false choices.

---

From where? Tabloid papers? So what, there is nothing you can do to change the way they report stuff other than stop buying the pap, just look at their coverage of the war.

---

I'm not clear what your proposing, it sounds like your position is that the scaremongering is inevitable and that nothing can/should be done about it. Whilst we cannot dictate what the tabloid media present, or who takes it in, I maintain that *something* must be done about it -- and the easiest option is counter-argument. How do you propose the fear-symptom (SARS meme) be countered?

---

Sure, as I said, Panic isnt going to achieve anything. Neither will sticking your head in the sand.

---

Of course; hopefully there are one or two usefull positions in between those taht can be adopted.

I'd reply but I'm too busy trying to get this damn sand out of my ears.

---

by Callum
It wasn't a semantic argument -- the impression was of circular reasoning, that there must be an epidemic because China was doing X, Y and Z.
(quotes)

---

It may well be circular reasoning, but then who decides when it is an epidemic? Surely the actions taken to stem an epidemic when one happens are a symptom of the epidemic?
I was indeed implying that China's action would rather suggest that they are trying to control an epidemic.

---

So where should the "within reason" line be drawn? This is fundamentally an economic problem, almost everything in this space is, we have limited resources and decissions need to be made about how to commit them.

---

I'm not unaware of this. I think you guys need to see where i'm coming from. Sange posted asking for whether people thought this was a threat or not, the overwhelming number of responses seemed to suggest that the disease was trifling, inconsequential and of no concern to any Briton. I believe that to be wrong. I havent suggested taking any measures which would be of huge cost, or economically damaging. The power to hospitalise a suspected case may infract on civil liberties a little, but I suspect most people who were coming down with a pretty bad flu at an airport would see it was in theirs and others interests to have themselves checked out. Its not expensive. I dont know what other ways we could be preparing for the disease in this country, but i'm sure they dont all need to cost a fortune or damage our economy.

If the disease, or its spread throughout the world becomes more and more serious, then obviously more and more time and money should be spent by the government here to prepare for the worst. Spending a few million to try preventing or allow for early containment of an outbreak here would be a lot cheaper than it taking hold like it has in China.

---

The position is simply that a disproportionately large number of those dieing are elderly/infirm/etc, and that this skews the figures.

---

Whether that factor skews figures or not this is being taken very seriously by the governments of those countries worst affected. If SARS really is such a low risk thing, for which you've got more chance of dieing falling down the stairs, why would those governments take actions they know will have a huge impact on their economy?

---

How about the one you explicitly stated - erring on the side of caution is a known-bias position; not necessarily a problem per se, but probably not an ideal one in the complex system in question.

---

Ok, so i'm biased. In that case I could argue you were biased in the favour of economics. We're all biased in one way or the other. Show me someone who really does take an entirely neutral position.

---

That is a rather different position from your previous comment that those numbers indicate exponential growth.

---

I said that they appear to be growing exponentially. Maybe a bold statement to make, and I admit not one based on really hard facts, it was based purely on that fact that the number had roughly quadrupled within roughly a month of first mentioning this to my friends.

---

Additionally, nobody is questioning the need to take the matter seriously - be carefull that such comments are not interpreted as implicit false choices.

---

I disagree, the majority opinion I have seen on SARS so far has been one of indifference, so I wouldnt worry about that scare mongering, it does appear to be having any effect.

On the scaremongering, I would say yes, it is inevitable from certain sections of the press. You just have to take what they say with a pinch of salt. Counter-argument to scaremongering is a good thing. I've tried to make my position clear, I am not in support of scaremongering, but conversely SARS should not be dismissed, hence our heated debate.

I'll finish by saying that a huge deal was made of the Y2K problem. Inevitably there was a lot of scaremongering involved. When Y2K arrived and things went as smoothly as they did, the media dismissed the problem as being overhyped. It was almost as though they were dissapointed that planes weren't falling from the sky. But that doesnt take away from the seriousnes the Y2K problem presented. It was only as a result of probably nearly two years of intensive work by people involved that the event went as smoothly as it did. Imagine for a minute if China's official response to the problem had been that you've more chance of dying crossing the road, hence we'll sit back and take no action.

(Edited by Funky Monkey 29/04/2003 21:07)

For everyone that feels they want to help a little bit in the cure against SARS: go here

Another distributed computering project but now to find the cure for SARS.

Is this actually going anywhere?

FM seems to be in favour of doing *something* as long as it involves action but doesn't seem to be clear what, how or why.

Seems to me that's hard to argue with since it is so nebulous.

---

by Funky Monkey
Ok, so i'm biased. In that case I could argue you were biased in the favour of economics.

---

How can you be biased in favour of economics? What are you saying... that some people are opposed to economics? It's like saying someone is biased in favour of gravity.

---

by Incandenza
Is this actually going anywhere?

---

I'm not sure it's supposed to be. I thought I had made my position clear, but in case there is any shred of doubt my position (in direct response to Sange's original post is this):

1. SARS *should* be taken seriously
2. I find the growth and lack of containment of SARS to be a worry. Whether anyone else finds it a worry is their decision.
3. Measures such as giving the rights to hospitilize suspected patients should be taken.
4. Measures such as screening should be considered
5. Efforts to contain the disease should not be hindered by economical concerns.

---

How can you be biased in favour of economics? What are you saying... that some people are opposed to economics? It's like saying someone is biased in favour of gravity.

---

[/quote]

If you're picking up on my bad grammar, then maximum points to you. Give yourself a pat on the back. I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the context of the current discussion

(Edited by Funky Monkey 30/04/2003 12:47)

---

by Funky Monkey
5. Efforts to contain the disease should not be hindered by economical concerns.

---

I fail to understand where you coming from here -- we have limited resources to commit to the solution of a complex problem; economic concerns *have* to apply, anything else in nonsensical.

---

by Funky Monkey
If you're picking up on my bad grammar, then maximum points to you. Give yourself a pat on the back. I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the context of the current discussion

---

I wasn't picking up on your bad grammer at all. I am sure the sentence was grammatically correct, not that it made any more sense for it.

In this context, what is economics but a means for attempting to quantify the risks and rewards, benefits and costs of any given course of action.

Without trying to put words in your mouth, your argument seems to be that the risks are so great that they outweigh any potential costs or disadvantages of responding.

This is despite the lack of anything other than supposition and guesswork on your part.

I find that position completely untenable and essentially out of whack with real world ideas (or Economics in your terminology).

1. SARS *should* be taken seriously

Define your terms. How serious would you like me to be?

2. I find the growth and lack of containment of SARS to be a worry. Whether anyone else finds it a worry is their decision.

That's fair enough. I think you have blown things massively out of proportion.

3. Measures such as giving the rights to hospitilize suspected patients should be taken.

There are 6 *suspected* patients in the UK, all of which are in hospital. Why legislate when the system is managing fine?

4. Measures such as screening should be considered

Screening who? Every visitor to the UK? Only people who come from places with identified cases? What do you mean by screening? Is it enough to look for people sneezing or should we take blood tests? The incubation period can be more than a week so looking for symptoms won't work. If we take blood tests, who is going to scrutinise the thousands of samples and where are we going to keep all the potentially sick whilst those tests are carried out? What kind of delays will that cause at every airport?

Is it really worth it given the number of worldwide cases and the mortality rate?

5. Efforts to contain the disease should not be hindered by economical concerns.

Right... so basically, to reiterate... NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, we should do everything possible to ensure SARS doesn't get to the UK.

That's easy, we close our borders until we are 100% certain that it's been eradicated from the rest of the world. Or maybe you think we should make slightly less effort than that? Damn, that would be compromising somewhere between doing everything at tremendous cost and doing nothing at zero cost (welcome to Economics).

---

by Funky Monkey
1. SARS *should* be taken seriously

---

SARS is being taken seriously, however (1) lines need to be drawn to determine what is a "serious" response, and that's a subjective matter, (2) public concern and information management is not being handled well, leading to irrationality in some quarters of the popular media.

---

2. I find the growth and lack of containment of SARS to be a worry. Whether anyone else finds it a worry is their decision.

---

Okay, that comes down to where you've drawn the line (above)

---

3. Measures such as giving the rights to hospitilize suspected patients should be taken.

---

This is happening, the only additional factor that needs to happen in this space is making it a notifiable disease - negligible short term benefit due to very low incidence level in the UK, but important in the medium term once we think the outbreak has died down.

---

4. Measures such as screening should be considered

---

Limited screening possibly, but even if it's just thermographic scanning of everyone walking through Heathrow we'll get false positives (anyone with a temperature) and false negatives (infected but not manifesting the symptoms. Anything more rigorous would have a massive impact on the time and effort needed to transit people through ports of entry; even then it is highly probable that infected people would be in the country (either already here, entering through unmonitored routes, or being missed by the screening) so we would have a massive and costly screening program which would probably not stop the disease entering the UK. If a serious screening attempt were made, it would be a logistical nightmare -- testing hundreds of thousands of people a day, housing the suspected ones, or maybe we should simply quarantine everyone!

---

5. Efforts to contain the disease should not be hindered by economical concerns.

---

---

If you're picking up on my bad grammar, then maximum points to you. Give yourself a pat on the back. I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the context of the current discussion

---

I'm sure Inc wasn't, the problem seems to be that you appear opposed to any economic management of the resources we need to commit to fighting SARS.

Say we take your track and commit every resource we can lay our hands on to this problem -- all police and customs staff are focused on regulating entry to the country; the military (primarily RAF and Navy) are fully commited to actively securing our borders so that the only way in is through monitered points of entry; many doctors and other medical staff are diverted away from their routine work; anyone entering the country is quarantined; anyone identified as having the disease is immediately hot roomed; etc.

Countless more people will die from this course of action than would from SARS (due to the reassignment of police and medical personnel etc); the total financial cost would be, I would speculate, of the order of 9figures/day; and we still couldn't tell if we'd succeeded.

About bias in the favour of Economics, I was simply referring to the idea of favouring cash (in crude terms) over caution. Its not difficult to grasp. Ie, it's 'economically' good sense (in the short term) to keep people flying to China, maybe even to cover up the disease, even if its not neccesarily safe.

---

Without trying to put words in your mouth, your argument seems to be that the risks are so great that they outweigh any potential costs or disadvantages of responding.

---

Not at all, people have a habit of seeing things at such extremes, nothing is so black and white. I am suggesting that whatever is warranted should be done. At the moment I would suggest that is small, simple measures. If evidence were to show a growing number of cases then obviously more and more money should be spent on prevention. The management of that is not down to me, but I think it would be simple to say that if you see the disease escalating within the country as causing billions of dollars of loss to your country, then spending tens or hundreds of millions to stop it, makes economic sense.

---

This is despite the lack of anything other than supposition and guesswork on your part.

---

Just my opinion, and a little data i've used to back it up. You're entitled to yours, and to provide your own data.

---

I find that position completely untenable and essentially out of whack with real world ideas (or Economics in your terminology).

---

The chinese are now going to lose billions in their economy after an initial cover up. I imagine most of those covering up the disease didnt take it to seriously. Look where there 'real world ideas' got them.

---

1. SARS *should* be taken seriously

Define your terms. How serious would you like me to be?

---

Well more seriously than anyone's fears of falling down the stairs lets say...

---

There are 6 *suspected* patients in the UK, all of which are in hospital. Why legislate when the system is managing fine?

---

Its such an easy and cheap measure to take, why not. For all the potential gain it could get you, economically it makes huge sense. Imagine someone resisting hospitalization now (and there is nothing to stop them) and then infecting dozens?

As for your questions on Screening, its been considered by Health Secretary Alan Milburn, so this isnt some crackpot idea of mine.

---

Is it really worth it given the number of worldwide cases and the mortality rate?

---

Yes it is.

---

Right... so basically, to reiterate... NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, we should do everything possible to ensure SARS doesn't get to the UK.

---

It would be ridiculous to suggest for example stopping all air, or sea transport of people in or out of the country to stop the disease (at this moment in time) although this would at least guarantee SARS immunity. It is not so ridiculous to start denying people from say Bejing into the country if the disease were to get out of control there. What I'm saying is that corporate greed should not be allowed to help the spread of the disease.

---

Damn, that would be compromising somewhere between doing everything at tremendous cost and doing nothing at zero cost (welcome to Economics).

---

So far it would seem you're on the side of doing nothing at Zero cost. I'm all for compromise, but not for the sake of lining people's pockets.

I do understand economics, anyone who has played a command & conquer game gets that. Thats why we dont make planes like a black box. But at the same time, we have huge amounts of safety procedures involved in flying planes. Most of those measures err on the side of caution. Are those people merely biased? Ignorant of economics? I dont think so.



(Edited by Funky Monkey 30/04/2003 16:33)

---

by Funky Monkey
You're entitled to yours, and to provide your own data.

---

I don't need to provide my own data when yours does such an admirable job. It's kind of like a glass half full thing...

I simply can't accept that a few thousand cases and a few hundred deaths represents a crisis worthy of more precautions than are already being taken.

---

The chinese are now going to lose billions in their economy after an initial cover up.

---

Billions is quite a lot... I'd be surprised if that were true.

---

Its such an easy and cheap measure to take, why not. For all the potential gain it could get you, economically it makes huge sense. Imagine someone resisting hospitalization now (and there is nothing to stop them) and then infecting dozens?

---

Why not... firstly because on general principle it's better not to pass knee jerk legislation that takes away personal freedoms. Secondly, I'm struggling to imagine why someone ill would not want to be treated?

---

As for your questions on Screening, its been considered by Health Secretary Alan Milburn, so this isnt some crackpot idea of mine.

---

Of course he has... what was he going to say... 'No, we haven't in fact considered all the options... we are just going to go with the first one that comes to mind.' Perhaps the fact they have considered and rejected it indicates a certain lack of merit in the idea?

---

What I'm saying is that corporate greed should not be allowed to help the spread of the disease.

---

Good thing we're not resorting to capitalist cliches (why not just say fat cats and have done with it). Damage to trade affects everyone, especially when the world economy is already in such a fragile state (and the airline industry most of all).

It has nothing to do with anyone 'lining their pockets' and everything to do with the concept of finite resources globally.

Command and Conquer is of course reknowned for its educational value although apparently not when it comes to aeronautics. Probably wise to skip over the idea that a plane made of black box material would somehow survive crashing into the Earth.

I'm struggling to see the parallel between building an aircraft where you expect people to pay for the privilege of flying safely in it and the SARS situation though.

Inc. We're patently getting nowhere here. I've stated my opinions as succinctly as I can. If you dont like them, dont agree with them or whatever, you're entitled to.

---

I simply can't accept that a few thousand cases and a few hundred deaths represents a crisis worthy of more precautions than are already being taken.

---

I think you've made that plain. I've made it plain that I think they do.

---

Billions is quite a lot... I'd be surprised if that were true.

---

Those are the estimates i've read from respectable sources. Its all to do with the stock markets, not how much China have spent on the problem.

---

Why not... firstly because on general principle it's better not to pass knee jerk legislation that takes away personal freedoms. Secondly, I'm struggling to imagine why someone ill would not want to be treated?

---

What you consider kneejerk, I consider a proper, non-permenant precaution - you see where i'm coming from - I dont see either of us changing our positions on that so lets just accept that we have a difference of opinions.

---

Good thing we're not resorting to capitalist cliches (why not just say fat cats and have done with it).

---

I dont see the need to insult me.

---

It has nothing to do with anyone 'lining their pockets' and everything to do with the concept of finite resources globally.

---

You dont see that sort of thing as possible? How about the fact that the UK and the US continued to trade Tetra Ethyl Lead (a neccesary fuel additive) with the Germans during World War II, for reasons of 'keeping business as usual', when in fact we could have severely damaged their airforce's ability to bomb us by withholding these supplies. The Germans themselves had no facility to make Tetra-Ethyl lead as far as I recall. So dont think that people wont try to make sure profit comes first in even the worst of situations.

---

Command and Conquer is of course reknowned for its educational value although apparently not when it comes to aeronautics.

---

You misunderstand, I wasnt going about about C&C and planes, I was saying that it teaches you something about economics, as do other similar games that involve balancing resources such as 'Age of Empires', 'Warcraft' etc, they are all one genre of game.

My plane analogy about the idea of cost vs risk. While inevitably cost is a factor in just HOW safe you make something, it would be irresponsible to put profit before safety, hence the usual 'erring of the side of caution' you will find in Aircraft, Trains etc. Many arguments against privatisation of industries that involve people's personal safety come down to concerns of whether profit will be put before safety.

---

Probably wise to skip over the idea that a plane made of black box material would somehow survive crashing into the Earth.

---

Phew, you don't half take everything so literally! Its a common, popular (half joking) question that's been around for years.. "Why dont they make planes out the stuff they make black boxes from". Another joking one is "Why dont they make them out of Dolls", seeing as kids dolls always seem to survive these things so intact.

Although the idea is half silly, one of the reasons planes aren't safer than they are is going to be cost related. The same is true for trains. There are many, many safety improvements that can be to trains, but some of them cost billions to implement. I've heard experts say that it would be possible to make trains MUCH safer, but the cost would be highly disproportinate with the result...wait I know what you're gonna say The current SARS thing doesn't merit taking actions yet, that the measures I propose are disproportinate with the result...this is where we come round to that matter of opinion thing again, and you know where I stand on that.