SARS..are YOU scared?

[Epona]

I agree with Arvon and pritchke, but think Willow has a point - I do believe it necessary to report this in the media so that people most at risk are aware of the symptoms - but certainly as far as the UK press goes (and I imagine in other countries it's similar) it has been completely overdone and seems to be intent on stirring up panic which is helpful to no-one.

To whoever mentioned the plague - yes it is endemic in parts of the US and most of the southern hemisphere and the WHO reports between 1000 and 3000 cases of plague a year. For those who don't know, bubonic and pneumonic plague are both infections by a bacteria called Yersinia Pestis - bubonic is the result of initial transmission of the bacteria to the bloodstream of humans from rats via the flea, and pneumonic is the same bacteria spread by aerosol means - ie sneezing or coughing, so infection starts in the respiratory system. Pneumonic infection is more serious and has a more or less 100% death rate if untreated, and bubonic has an untreated mortality rate of around 50% (although being bacterial can be treated if caught early enough). Compared to a 3.5% mortality rate for SARS. For those interested, the vast majority of pneumonic plague cases in humans are the result of being sneezed on by infected housecats. So there you go.

[ 05-03-2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Epona ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by pritchke: No, SARS is over rated due to media blowing the disease out of proportion. If you look back over the out breaks over the past century SARS is small potatoes. Look up the Spanish Influenza.

Actually I think both you and Arvon are wrong. This is a NEW disease and should be alerted in the media. The flu is a reoccurring disease, one every year, and is known to most people. Indeed society´s elders are encouraged to come in for a vaccination before the flu arrives. We know what it is and what it does. That is not true about SARS. Imagine what would have happened if AIDS had got the prime-time SARS has had. It took us 15 years to spread information about AIDS. This way is IMO better. The media getting the facts wrong is of course nothing new.

Edit: And we can actually predict the severity of the new flu. With better accuracy than the weather too. [/QUOTE]I disagree. The media is not a good source of education. Although education about SARS is needed, the media has a great talent for blowing situations out of proportion.

Granted SARS is a new problem, but it is nowhere near as deadly as something like Ebola, yet SARS has created much more direct and indirect problems because of the media.

[Gangrell]

Weither the media is making too much of this or not, this should not be taken lightly. It can still hurt many people and has killed so don't go into the open air and inhale large amounts of it.

[WillowIX]

[quote]Originally posted by Animal:

Originally posted by WillowIX: [qb]I disagree. The media is not a good source of education. Although education about SARS is needed, the media has a great talent for blowing situations out of proportion. Granted SARS is a new problem, but it is nowhere near as deadly as something like Ebola, yet SARS has created much more direct and indirect problems because of the media.

It seems I´m getting too subtitle all the time nowadays. Not once will you here me saying that media is a source of education. It´s primary use is information, and the media is way better than any government to relay this information. As for blowing things out of proportion well the media has to sell. You learn to filter out the interesting parts. And why would you trust people who know no more than you in this matter? What is interesting is where, when and who and the media is capable of relaying these facts. If you want to know HOW you will have to talk to experts.

And comparing SARS with ebola is just as invalid as comparing malaria with the flu. If ebola were to strike the western world with its massive media corporations I promise you you will hear more about ebola than you have ever heard of SARS.

Originally posted by: Epona *snip* but certainly as far as the UK press goes (and I imagine in other countries it's similar) it has been completely overdone and seems to be intent on stirring up panic which is helpful to no-one. *snip*

How many papers more would they sell if they only reported 50 calm people visiting a clinic? The primary function for the media, in regards to their own, is the numbers of people watching their show or buying their papers. What is important is the alerts. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

If anyone want pure information about the virus/disease/research I would suggest a visit to the WHO (http://www.who.int/en/) or the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/) website. [img]smile.gif[/img] You will not get any alerts like the one Ziroc posted there though. So use the TV or the morning paper for the alerts and basic information.

Edit: Interesting. The parenthesis removed the auto-URL.

[ 05-03-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Epona]

Willow I entirely agree that the reason the media acts the way it does is to sell papers or get viewer ratings up to increase their advertising revenue. But I still don't think it's right or moral to create a panic amongst people who believe everything they read in the papers, which was more the point I was trying to make.

[Animal]

Education and information are two different things. While it would be nice to assume that everyone who reads or watches a news story about SARS is able to filter out the media's interpretation of it, it's just not going to happen and there lies the biggest problem with communicating information through the media. It's not reliable.

I agree that educating people and providing accurate information about SARS is a necessity, but I feel the media is incapable of doing so without causing mass hysteria. The economy in Toronto has lost an estimated $1 billion because of the SARS scare,not the virus itself, but the panic caused by the media.

I wasn't comparing SARS to Ebola, just comparing the media's effect when reporting both.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Epona: Willow I entirely agree that the reason the media acts the way it does is to sell papers or get viewer ratings up to increase their advertising revenue. But I still don't think it's right or moral to create a panic amongst people who believe everything they read in the papers, which was more the point I was trying to make.

Which is what I am trying to point out about my hometown. No panic here, but according to the media Toronto is closed and everyone is being brutally stopped when getting too near the SARS clinic. The only explanation I have is "you learn to live with it". The media can´t play the "panic card" here since we now are quite familiar with the subject.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Animal: Education and information are two different things. While it would be nice to assume that everyone who reads or watches a news story about SARS is able to filter out the media's interpretation of it, it's just not going to happen and there lies the biggest problem with communicating information through the media. It's not reliable. I agree that educating people and providing accurate information about SARS is a necessity, but I feel the media is incapable of doing so without causing mass hysteria. The economy in Toronto has lost an estimated $1 billion because of the SARS scare,not the virus itself, but the panic caused by the media. I wasn't comparing SARS to Ebola, just comparing the media's effect when reporting both.

Pretty much the same as I said in my post.

But IMO you can´t compare reports of SARS and ebola in the media either. Ebola has never struck anywhere outside Africa and probably never will. And even the outbreaks in Africa is very localized and appears on roughly the same places.

[Animal]

I was simply stating that the mainstream media is not a good source for relaying information of this type due to its penchant for over exaggerating the facts. Most people are more likely to read a story entitled "SARS kills ten more last night" versus a Q&A about it. Since the media is interested in selling copies the facts give way to sensationalism.

What is it that we are disagreeing about again? I forget.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Animal: I was simply stating that the mainstream media is not a good source for relaying information of this type due to its penchant for over exaggerating the facts. Most people are more likely to read a story entitled "SARS kills ten more last night" versus a Q&A about it. Since the media is interested in selling copies the facts give way to sensationalism. What is it that we are disagreeing about again? I forget.

Ehh I believe we are in agreement. When I talk about "information" I mean relaying where it has spread. For instance the article Ziroc posted. That´s it. When it comes to relaying facts I never agree with the media. Why? Because the people writing the stories are laymen and nothing more. And were I to write an article about SARS less than 1 % would understand it. What I´m saying is that if you want facts you will have to go look for them yourself and I am used to tat already.

[ 05-03-2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]