Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome
|Severe acute respiratory syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 20, 2004.|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Severe acute respiratory syndrome.
|Severe acute respiratory syndrome has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 16, 2004, November 16, 2005, November 16, 2006, November 16, 2007, November 16, 2008, and November 16, 2013.|
Wow. Major error in talking about 1918-19 Influenza Pandemic.
we had been saying that fatality during the 1918 pandemic was 20%. Whereas a commonly given figure is >2.5% (greater than two-and-a-half percent).
1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics, CDC, Jeffery Taubenberger, David Morens, January 2006.
small outbreak year later in December 2003--January 2004
Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic, David Quammen, Norton & Company, 2012, pages 167-208.
"In late December, it did. Like an aftershock to a quake, a new case broke in Guangdong. Soon afterward, three more. On patient was a waitress who had been exposed to a civet. On January 5, 2004, the day the first case was confirmed, Guangdong authorities reversed policy again, ordering the death and disposal of every masked palm civet held at a farm or a market in the province. . . "
" . . . Woops, civets aren't the reservoir of SARS. . . "
" . . . One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent to the way SARS-CoV affects the human body: Symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. The headache, the fever, and the chills--maybe even the cough--precede the major discharge of virus toward other people. Even among some of the superspreaders, in 2003, this seems to have been true. . . "
- If true, this is an important fact which we should include. The author Mr. David Quammen is the author of other books and is also a contributing writer for National Geographic. I'd like to see if we get some additional sources on this point if possible. A seasoned science writer can be a very good source. I just want additional good sources if possible. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
China confirms two new Sars cases, BBC, January 17, 2004:
" . . . Officials say that Sars symptoms appear to be milder this year, but have warned the population to be vigilant especially during the coming week-long Chinese Lunar New Year holiday. . . "
Relatively small outbreak in March - April 2004
WHO Statistics are Badly Misquoted
There is a significant disparity between the statistics shown in the article and those from the reference: WHO Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR) For example, for the US, the referenced article shows 33 cases with 0 deaths, and Wikipedia shows 71 cases with 4 deaths.
These errors are also in the graphic
- There seems to be another error in number of cases; "8,273" in introduction is not stated in cited source (it's 8096 according to WHO), and source that states "8,273 cases" in epidemiology section is not available any more--Faskal (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
How did it end?
There doesn't seem to be any information in the article about how the outbreaks were ultimately contained and why this didn't become a pandemic. It would be nice to know, for example, if there are still a few cases per year or if this was a 'one-time' syndrome that's just never been heard from again? Have there been any cases at all since 2004? If not why not? If it was actually due to successful containment efforts by public health authorities all over the world, that seems like a triumph worth noting. If it was mysterious, it would be good to know that too. A section on 'aftermath' would be a nice place to sum up even if it amounted to little more than something like "The epidemic stopped as suddenly as it began and nobody knows why. There have been no further cases." --Arvedui (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In the second section where they talk about transmission of SARS, they talk about physical or sexual contact including tattoos.
How is the tattoos part relevant and should I remove it?
- This presumably refers to blood-borne infection as a result of the process of tattooing, not physical contact with tattooed skin -- The Anome (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
SARS origin traced to bats?
This recent report appears to suggest that the origin of SARS has finally been confirmed to be from bats:
- "Bats confirmed as SARS origin". CSIRO. 31 October 2013. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- The SARS virus isolated from humans was identified as a coronavirus during the SARS outbreak. The Alpha and Betacoronaviruses are known to be from bats. However, with the SARS outbreak, there was no contact with bats reported, but there were reports of contact with Chinese civets in a live animal market which also traded in bats. However, bats isolated in the area of the index patient of the SARS outbreak did not return any isolates related to those found in the patients. This recent discovery of live SL-CoV-WIV1 was found in the dung of Chinese horseshoe bats. It is the closest SARS-like virus found in a bat to date. It is a close strain to the isolates found in the SARS patients. Unlike the MERS-CoV which has an exact match between the MERS index patient and an Egyptian tomb bat suggesting that bat, or a bat from that roost actually infected the MERS index patient. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)