5 ms·

> but in 2003 it turned into a global outbreak that infected 8,098 You'd think it was more than that given the media outcry at the time. 8,000 out of ~6.8 bi

by Volpe 14y ago

> but in 2003 it turned into a global outbreak that infected 8,098 You'd think it was more than that given the media outcry at the time. 8,000 out of ~6.8 billion is a complete nothing... more people probably died in car accidents in the same time period.

zrail 14y ago
In 2003 there were 42,643 deaths due to auto accidents in the United States alone. It's a pretty staggering number. [1]: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_accidents_a_year http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_...
gojomo 14y ago
Seasonal flu is implicated in anywhere from 3k to 49k deaths per year in the US alone (depending on how rough the seasonal variant is). So 774 worldwide from SARS isn't much of a 'pandemic' to fear. If over 7k people had confirmed SARS and survived, many more probably had mild cases that were never disambiguated from other seasonal respiratory illnesses. Perhaps they 'superspread' milder viral variants which spoiled the 'herd' for nastier variants.
- bodyfour 14y ago
  > many more probably had mild cases that were never disambiguated from other seasonal respiratory illnesses It's certainly possible that some people got "low-grade" or even asymptomatic SARS. However, given how it spread like wildfire through exposed populations (such as health-care workers) it does seem that many people were susceptible to the virus and developed severe symptoms when exposed. Therefore it seems unlikely that antibodies built up in the "herd" had much to do with the pandemic ending. The credit goes to the massive public health response, especially isolating anybody with suspected contact. SARS had all the components needed for a bad pandemic; they probably saved tens of millions of lives.
hartror 14y ago
The potential is what is feared. Car accidents aren't suddenly going to kill 1-3%[1] of the worlds population and bring international commerce to a stand still. [1] 20-50 mil 1918 flu pandemic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
icegreentea 14y ago
Yes. But they were also actively fighting the spread of the disease. 10% mortality rate is nothing to cough at. It's in some ways like Y2K. It came and went, and really nothing much happened. Precisely because the media projections were all about 'what could go wrong (+ a healthy dose of extra sensationalism)' versus reality where there was directed and active mitigation and prevention, precisely to prevent that.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
It's about risk. If even one person was infected and died of smallpox in, say, New York City you would see 24/7 news coverage and billions of dollars of government expenditures to keep things controlled. And it would be justified.

by Volpe 14y ago

zrail 14y ago

In 2003 there were 42,643 deaths due to auto accidents in the United States alone. It's a pretty staggering number. [1]: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_accidents_a_year http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_...

gojomo 14y ago

Seasonal flu is implicated in anywhere from 3k to 49k deaths per year in the US alone (depending on how rough the seasonal variant is). So 774 worldwide from SARS isn't much of a 'pandemic' to fear. If over 7k people had confirmed SARS and survived, many more probably had mild cases that were never disambiguated from other seasonal respiratory illnesses. Perhaps they 'superspread' milder viral variants which spoiled the 'herd' for nastier variants.

bodyfour 14y ago
> many more probably had mild cases that were never disambiguated from other seasonal respiratory illnesses It's certainly possible that some people got "low-grade" or even asymptomatic SARS. However, given how it spread like wildfire through exposed populations (such as health-care workers) it does seem that many people were susceptible to the virus and developed severe symptoms when exposed. Therefore it seems unlikely that antibodies built up in the "herd" had much to do with the pandemic ending. The credit goes to the massive public health response, especially isolating anybody with suspected contact. SARS had all the components needed for a bad pandemic; they probably saved tens of millions of lives.

hartror 14y ago

The potential is what is feared. Car accidents aren't suddenly going to kill 1-3%[1] of the worlds population and bring international commerce to a stand still. [1] 20-50 mil 1918 flu pandemic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

icegreentea 14y ago

Yes. But they were also actively fighting the spread of the disease. 10% mortality rate is nothing to cough at. It's in some ways like Y2K. It came and went, and really nothing much happened. Precisely because the media projections were all about 'what could go wrong (+ a healthy dose of extra sensationalism)' versus reality where there was directed and active mitigation and prevention, precisely to prevent that.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

It's about risk. If even one person was infected and died of smallpox in, say, New York City you would see 24/7 news coverage and billions of dollars of government expenditures to keep things controlled. And it would be justified.