Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING-- 2nd UK Resident Contracts 'Sars-Like' Coronavirus!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   


A UK resident is in intensive care after contracting a potentially fatal Sars-like virus, health experts confirm.





The bug, which is similar to the Sars virus and causes severe breathing problems, has so far been confirmed in 10 people worldwide. Five have died.


Sky News




TextA second case of a new respiratory illness similar to the deadly Sars virus has been identified in the UK. The patient, who is receiving intensive care treatment in a Manchester hospital, had recently travelled to the Middle East and Pakistan.

BBC NEWS

Just found this on Sky and BBC apparently the second case of Coronavirus has hit also in Manchester it is thought the man has recently travelled to the Middle East where he has become infected.

So far I think only about 10 people have died as a result of this but it is infectious and now present in the UK.

I will post more when I can.

edit on 11-2-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.
Did you just pick out 7-10 days randomly or is there some research based evidence behind this assertion? Got a particular country list? Got a plan for the thousands of places in this quarantine centre, hotel style or prison camp? Funding costs Included in the return travel ticket or raised through general taxation?
Thought this through, or just a knee-jerk reaction?
Foreign travel is not the preserve of the elite anymore, we're talking many hundreds of thousands of people each year, and the costs of your 'solution' would seem prohibitive during these fiscally lean times in the UK.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.


I am inclined to agree with the above poster. You do realize the implications (costs, logistics, and personnel) involved with a mandatory quarantine for every traveler?

It'll be interesting to watch how this pans out in the days to come, but I feel nothing much will come of this event.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   



Although Coronavirus is linked to common cold as well. Due to its difficult growth in Lab settings, its harder to study.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Tardacus
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.
Did you just pick out 7-10 days randomly or is there some research based evidence behind this assertion? Got a particular country list? Got a plan for the thousands of places in this quarantine centre, hotel style or prison camp? Funding costs Included in the return travel ticket or raised through general taxation?
Thought this through, or just a knee-jerk reaction?
Foreign travel is not the preserve of the elite anymore, we're talking many hundreds of thousands of people each year, and the costs of your 'solution' would seem prohibitive during these fiscally lean times in the UK.


ever thought what all these fema camps are for ? you never know they could be the answer.
edit Do we the uk have anything like fema camps????????
edit on 11/2/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
Do we the uk have anything like fema camps????????
No evidence anywhere to suggest we do.
The UK struggles with prison accommodation as it is, so any idea of secret camps waiting unused for some future unknown event to hold civilians would not be a position I support as very realistic.

*Edit* It would be much easier to lock an entire community down than transfer affected to camps in the event of an infectious outbreak. Also more practical due to reduced risk of undiagnosed folk being missed.
I can certainly imagine policy makers looking at it that way, as in any other decision that is a cost/deaths analysis.
edit on 11-2-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I heard an interesting factoid the other day. Apparently the entire human race (~7B) would fit within the confines of the state of Rhode Island....

That seems rather amazing to me. Let's just find an island and send the infected there.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.


I'd agree with that, but extend the period to 3 weeks, some viruses have a longer incubation period than others. I'd expand the country list to include all underdeveloped countries, and all those that do not hold to a similar standard of hygiene and animal welfare as the UK too.



edit on 11-2-2013 by MysterX because: error



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
3 weeks now eh, I'll ask the same questions to your good self as well then:
Got a particular country list? Got a plan for the thousands of places in this quarantine centre, hotel style or prison camp? Funding costs Included in the return travel ticket or raised through general taxation?
Thought this through, or just a knee-jerk reaction?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by maryhinge
Do we the uk have anything like fema camps????????
No evidence anywhere to suggest we do.
The UK struggles with prison accommodation as it is, so any idea of secret camps waiting unused for some future unknown event to hold civilians would not be a position I support as very realistic.

*Edit* It would be much easier to lock an entire community down than transfer affected to camps in the event of an infectious outbreak. Also more practical due to reduced risk of undiagnosed folk being missed.
I can certainly imagine policy makers looking at it that way, as in any other decision that is a cost/deaths analysis.
edit on 11-2-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)


I'd imagine in the event of a countrywide viral outbreak, army / Naval barracks would initially be used as quarantine places. If the outbreak became too severe and people were dropping like flys, then i can see them going with what you say...fencing, then walling off entire towns and even cities.

That won't stop a virus that can jump species or is airborne though...birds, insects, and other transmission routes would still spread it.

The only course of action in such a situation, as terrifying and inhumane as it sounds, would be to firebomb the entire effected area to try to contain the spread.

Makes me shudder to think about it.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 59demon
 

I'm really pleased you're not in charge of public health policy decisions in the UK.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by MysterX
3 weeks now eh, I'll ask the same questions to your good self as well then:
Got a particular country list? Got a plan for the thousands of places in this quarantine centre, hotel style or prison camp? Funding costs Included in the return travel ticket or raised through general taxation?
Thought this through, or just a knee-jerk reaction?



No, and not really is the honest answer grainofsand.

The simplest solution would be to limit travel to or from the areas most likely to be considered cess pits in the first place.

As far as funding goes, we seem to be able to afford to house and keep separate many thousands of illegal immigrants in secure centres...in the event of a terrible and deadly viral outbreak, cost wouldn't even come into play.

edit on 11-2-2013 by MysterX because: added comment



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by 59demon
 

I'm really pleased you're not in charge of public health policy decisions in the UK.



Me too..it must be a terrible burden, especially if there ever was a nightmare outbreak.

We are talking about a hypothetical outbreak here aren't we?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   


The Health Protection Agency confirms a UK resident has contracted the new Sars-like coronavirus and is in intensive care.


Pllleaseeeee.... "SARS-like" ?

SARS itself is an acronym which is extremely vague.

S = severe. (obvious definition)
A = acute. (rapid, sudden onset)
R = respiratory. (anything to do with the respiratory system)
S = syndrome. (a term which by definition does NOT include a precise cause of any illness)

So the term SARS really doesn't describe ANYTHING in particular, it could be asthma or pneumonia !

and now we have a "health agency" declaring a SARS-like illness?

So in other words, "vaguer than vague",,, but watch out!!!!!




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
I'd imagine in the event of a countrywide viral outbreak, army / Naval barracks would initially be used as quarantine places.
Where, on the parade grounds or sports pitches? What about the service folk already there?
I see curfew/home/street quarantine as far more likely and easier to manage with fewer resources needed.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by MysterX
I'd imagine in the event of a countrywide viral outbreak, army / Naval barracks would initially be used as quarantine places.
Where, on the parade grounds or sports pitches? What about the service folk already there?
I see curfew/home/street quarantine as far more likely and easier to manage with fewer resources needed.


Yes, agreed compulsory home quarantine would be a sensible option...i would do that volutarily in any case...nothing in or out, no post, no parcels, no visitors.

ETA: I'm talking about home quarantine for the uninfected, healthy population...not the infected, who would be the ones taken to barracks or other temporary, secure facilities. It would be too dangerous and irresponsible to allow the infected of a deadly easily spread virus to remain in their homes on trust only.

I'd imagine the service personnel would have their hands full outside of their barracks enforcing quarantine procedures and dealing with containment...their barracks would be where their commanders decided to pitch them.

edit on 11-2-2013 by MysterX because: added comment



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT



The Health Protection Agency confirms a UK resident has contracted the new Sars-like coronavirus and is in intensive care.


Pllleaseeeee.... "SARS-like" ?

SARS itself is an acronym which is extremely vague.

S = severe. (obvious definition)
A = acute. (rapid, sudden onset)
R = respiratory. (anything to do with the respiratory system)
S = syndrome. (a term which by definition does NOT include a precise cause of any illness)

So the term SARS really doesn't describe ANYTHING in particular, it could be asthma or pneumonia !

and now we have a "health agency" declaring a SARS-like illness?

So in other words, "vaguer than vague",,, but watch out!!!!!



That is incorrect SARS is a name of a virus its not a catch all term for a number of differnt causes

What you are talking about is what is more commonly known as “Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome”. So it if was an acute case of Pneumonia it might be called a case of “ARDS” rather than “SARS” because SARS is the name given to a virus.

I agree that the SARS acronym is somewhat vague as it does not really suggest a virus but rather the symptoms of the virus however the Coronavirus is the virus that causes SARS (called SARS-CoV) so the media are very accurate in saying “SARS-Like”.
edit on 11-2-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Nice one for the heads up in this thread, I've been watching Channel 4's 'Utopia' these past few weeks, definitely makes me wonder sometimes



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by HIWATT



The Health Protection Agency confirms a UK resident has contracted the new Sars-like coronavirus and is in intensive care.


Pllleaseeeee.... "SARS-like" ?

SARS itself is an acronym which is extremely vague.

S = severe. (obvious definition)
A = acute. (rapid, sudden onset)
R = respiratory. (anything to do with the respiratory system)
S = syndrome. (a term which by definition does NOT include a precise cause of any illness)

So the term SARS really doesn't describe ANYTHING in particular, it could be asthma or pneumonia !

and now we have a "health agency" declaring a SARS-like illness?

So in other words, "vaguer than vague",,, but watch out!!!!!



That is incorrect SARS is a name of a virus its not a catch all term for a number of differnt causes

What you are talking about is what is more commonly known as “Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome”. So it if was an acute case of Pneumonia it might be called a case of “ARDS” rather than “SARS” because SARS is the name given to a virus.

I agree that the SARS acronym is somewhat vague as it does not really suggest a virus but rather the symptoms of the virus however the Coronavirus is the virus that causes SARS (called SARS-CoV) so the media are very accurate in saying “SARS-Like”.
edit on 11-2-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



"SARS" = Severe acute respiratory syndrome

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a "serious" form of pneumonia
(quotations added)




SARS is caused by a member of the coronavirus family of viruses (the same family that can cause the common cold)

(emphasis added)




Symptoms usually occur about 2 to 10 days after coming in contact with the virus.


2-10 DAYS ??? How exactly does that equate to "ACUTE" which by definition means RAPID ONSET?

It's not only vague, it's outright BS. The contradictions are right there in plain print.

I remember when this "outbreak appeared" back in the early 2000's - I saw people walking around (many of them paranoid Asians) with masks on! I mean walking through the mall.. wearing a mask, because big bad SARS was on the loose! Look out!

The WHO likes to take run of the mill every day ailments and then glorify them to the stature of BIO TERROR !!!! simply by renaming them. Common flu = bird/swine H1N1X32_acute/death_soon virus, Common cold = SARS/youbreathe_youdie virus... etc etc

SARS is "credited with" 750 deaths in 2003. WORLD WIDE

Conversely, the CDC reported 36,000 flu-related (also shares "SARS" symptoms) deaths in the US alone.

I'm the first to say I don't believe that number at all but when relating the WHO to the CDC you are referring to two pigs under the same blanket so I'm using the number here, if anything to exemplify how # ridiculous the whole scam is. And how the average Joe buys it hook line and sinker.

The SARS! angle is re-emerging because people are wising up to what they are being told about Flu vaccination, and the LIES surrounding that.
Most people won't realize that SARS by definition could easily simply be the common flu. What better way to try and sucker people in to get poked than to revisit an old friend in BIG BAD SARS!






new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join