SARS deadlier than AIDS?

[Bizarro]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm...DS%20SAYS%20DOC

can someone from the UK tell me if Daily Record is a tabloid or a real news source?

[Space Moose]

Even if it is a tabloid, the truth is still in there. Someone with SARS can much more easily infect someone than someone with AIDS can. SARS has the potential to explode and if it hits the right areas (India, Africa, Mexico to name a few). Places such as those don't have great track records with sanitation or government health care. When combined with the high population density in these areas, SARS would run rampant and devestate many people.

Indeed tragic, but it is not sounding like much can be done at this point to stop it. Perhaps a vaccine or antibiotic will be develped shortly that will make quick work of SARS, but if containment doesn't work, let's just say Malthus won't be proved correct for a good long time.

[Kismit]

I don't even want to think about SARS . I had an Asian woman cough on me at work the other day and she thought absolutly nothing of it . We get litterally hundreds of travelers through work every day any one of them could be a time bomb waiting to go off .

If I think to much about this disease I'll turn into one of those germaphobes .

[Saru]

DS,

The Daily Record is a newspaper, not a particularly reputable one either.

I think the main difference between Aids and SARS that we have to remember is that people with SARS get better - AIDS is presently uncurable, and most of those infected with SARS have made a full recovery.

It's still a problem though, and could run rampant if left to it's own devices.

[Kismit]

Actually Saruman , I was thinking that Sars could be a blessing in disguise.

If it is a mutable disease like Aids, it could actually force the body into producing mutable anti bodies . Which could possibly in turn produce a cure for A.I.D.S. Similarly to the way Cow Pox begat the cure for small Pox .