Quote:
Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
2% of the people that get infected with sars die.
|
It's more like 4%
The spanish flu pandemic in 1918 mortality rate was 2.5%
"SARS is actually deadlier than the 1918 flu virus, killing 4 per cent of its victims compared with 2.5 per cent. But most worrisome to Dr. Brown is that, so far, SARS is not following the pattern he has seen in outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Ebola, which often causes a fatal hemorrhagic fever. They start strong and ugly, but they weaken quickly into more benign forms. This is because evolution favours viruses that are milder. Viruses need to be transmitted to a new host in order to survive, so the gentler organisms within a population usually dominate over time.
"A virus that makes you a little less sick, and allows you to walk around the mall, is going to do better than the one that is highly virulent," Dr. Brown says.
The influenza virus in 1918 also did not follow this pattern, and it is unclear whether it ever weakened. It may have disappeared because it ran out of people to infect. Or it may have mutated into a less lethal form after an unusually long period of virulence (more than one year). It troubles Dr. Brown that SARS may be following a similar, unconventional path. Could it be another pandemic?"
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...UU/Comment/Idx