Talk:SARS/Archive 1

 Talk continued at talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome 

where does the November 2002 date come from? I can't see it in the WHO links ( 17:34 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention Western complaints that China kept the outbreak a secret for so long? According to Western standards, countries should let other countries know when there's an outbreak of disease, so that the other countries can warn their citizens, take steps to prevent spread, search for a cure, etc. Communist and some third-world countries, especially China, seem to want to hide these outbreaks.

How can we mention the above POV neutrally? --Uncle Ed 21:40 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know the politics, but the WHO doesn't yet recognize the China outbreak as being the same disease. -º¡º

China reported the outbreak in mid-February, according to WHO. Who specifically has complained that "China kept the outbreak a secret for so long"? AxelBoldt 21:32 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm going to have to stop thinking that whatever I half-remember from yesterday's newspaper is good enough to throw into an encyclopedia article. Maybe the stone soup way of writing is a bit below the standard we all want here. --Uncle Ed 21:52 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * So far there isn't any direct evidence of "China kept the outbreak a secret for so long". WHO report should confirm or refute it; however the government '''has definitely attempted" to do so from how they have been dealing with this outbreak. BTW what exactly did you mean by stone soup of writing? -- k2

I remember reading somewhere that "Antibiotics are ineffective" on all viruses. So why mention that they don't work on SARS, unless it's to support the view of researchers that SARS is likely caused by a virus?


 * It is precisely to support that view. Antibiotics have been tried in SARS and they are ineffective. This is evidence that it is very likely viral in origin.  Is your view that facts shouldn't be mentioned if they lead to a conclusion? -- Someone else 17:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Similarly, the apparent effectiveness of ribavirin also suggests that the causative agent is an RNA virus. Should this fact also be suppressed because it supports one theory over another? -- Someone else 17:21 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I will respond at the bottom of this page. --Uncle Ed ---

Someone who knows something about medicine should really review this article. --Uncle Ed 19:53 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

- In the table, the country I would always write Vietnam is Viet Nam. That looks archaic and wrong to me, but I don't want to change it because it might be a Britishism or something. Is it? Tuf-Kat

--- The edit as of 15:36 Mar 27, 2003 seems to have broken the floating table layout: I'm not sure why. - Now that the table seems to be a full page wide, shouldn't it be moved to later in the article so that you see the starting text of the article when the page opens? -- Someone else 17:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * The table layout should be fixed now.

Does the WHO recommend screening all airline passangers or those coming from the epidemic area ? Kpjas 18:49 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Just those from the epidemic area. The Anome
 * The definition of which appears to consist of parts of eastern Asia, plus Toronto. Vicki Rosenzweig

Responding to 'Someone Else': I may have expressed myself poorly. I didn't want the antibiotics thing taken out -- rather, I wanted to clarify why it was there at all. If, as you just explained (and I had surmised), the ineffectiveness of antibiotics and the apparent effectiveness of ribavirin are considered signs that the disease is viral, then the article should say that clearly. How about this?


 * Researchers studying the disease have concluded that it is most likely viral in nature, for two reasons: (1) ribavirin appears to have had some success treating the disease, and (2) antibiotics have had no success at all.

--Uncle Ed


 * It's now just supportive evidence: it was more important before the more recent studies (electon microscopy and nucleic acid analysis) that (now) provide better evidence of its viral nature. I'd just leave it alone for a week or so by which time we can probably make a more definitive statement. -- Someone else 20:51 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

The removal of references put in by others to support their changes in an article is unacceptable. Don't do it. Fred Bauder 01:39 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

That some of the external links probably should have been included in the references section is true. Fred Bauder 01:39 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

--- User:AxelBoldt says that paramyxovirus is "now out". I put it in the article before seeing that comment. Can I have a citation on that, please? The last I saw (which was yesterday, I should note) suggested that co-infection with that and a coronavirus might be the cause. Vicki Rosenzweig 01:57 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I added human metapneumovirus based on the latest CDC update. Vicki Rosenzweig 13:21 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have to "take out" any early guesses as to what's causing SARS. Just say, "researchers have explored a number of possible causes. When antibiotics proved ineffective and riboflavin (?) seemed to work, they began leaning toward a viral cause. As of late March, paramyxovirus has been ruled out by the XYZ and the PDQ, while researchers as Bell Labs think a Trojan Horse program might . . ." Okay, maybe I shouldn't be joking around about this, but you get the point. --Uncle Ed 19:26 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Newspapers (Tribune Wire services) say that China has released no substantive information on the disease's progress since Feb 9, when it said 5 people had died and 305 had been stricken by atypical pneumonia in Guangdong. That differs slightly with what's in the article, not sure which is more correct, nor of sources for either.-- ~ender 2003-03-30 23:49 MST


 * The WHO website give "mid-February" as the report date by China of the 305/5 number. On March 26, China upgraded to the current 806/34 number. AxelBoldt 17:18 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I took this out:
 * There are fears that airborne tranmission may be a possibility as well.

I'm sure there are these fears in some people, but I don't think that the cases seen nor the warnings of CDC/WHO support those fears. Everybody says that droplet inhalation or possibly contact with virus seems to be required, which is also how other similar viruses work. AxelBoldt 17:41 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * March 29th CDC briefing, CDC Director Julie Gerberding speaking: "We believe, based on what the investigations have shown us so far, that the major mode of transmission still is through droplet spread when an infected person coughs or sneezes and droplets are spread to a nearby contact. But we are concerned about the possibility of airborne transmission across broader areas and also the possibility that objects that become contaminated in the environment could serve as modes of spread." (emphasis added).


 * See also:    -º¡º


 * See which goes into this question in great detail. -81.86.241.184 

Oh, ok, yes, the sentence should go back in again then. Thanks. AxelBoldt 18:36 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We will, naturally, delete or expand the statement as more facts are known. -º¡º

-

I'm wondering what is meant by "PCR testing" because PCR isn't really a test. It's just a procedure to amplify certain parts of the DNA strands, not an actual test in itself. --dave

TakuyaMurata asked "Who the hell wants to make Taiwan part of mainland China?"


 * Muratasan, many people consider Taiwan to be part of China. That is the position of People's Republic of China and many Taiwanese, including the Kuomintang and People First Party.  See Political status of Taiwan for more details. More simply, I am classing Taiwan as part of China because the World Health Organization does the same thing, and that is where all the data in that table comes from.  -º¡º


 * Though this is apparently off-topic, I know some people in China claim Taiwan is a provience of PRC and some in Taiwain tend to think China and Taiwan one nation Republic of China or something. But I don't think it is widely recognized view in the world. See the world map. See other stats, and whatever resources clarified by country. I didn't know WHO regard Taiwan is part of China. Can you give us a reference about it? (Anyway I really like people as well as you speak to me Japanese) -- Taku 00:59 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hai Muratasan. Here  is today's WHO update of worldwide cases, and you will see that they group Taiwan with China.  I personally take no stance on this issue, but since the table in question is simply a daily update of the WHO data, I will continue to represent it that way. -º¡º


 * Doesn't anyone find that notation China, Taiwan weird? It is apparently wrong. Anyway I agree to use the same representation while we should inform people in WHO that is wrong. -- Taku 01:26 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too found it to be a strange notation. But I decided that the most neutral thing to do was not make major changes. -º¡º

I really wish someone more knowledgeable than me would keep this page up to date. My casual reading shows this article to be sloppy and behind the times. There is no mention of the 100s of people confined to their homes in (what is it? Singapore? Hong Kong?) or who fled from their homes and are hiding to avoid a fate "worse than prison" -- but who might unintentionally spread the disease further. --Uncle Ed


 * Hi Ed. For my part, I only try to make sure a few major things are correct, and let others continue to do the "breaking news" thing.  Because the WHO has specific standards for what they consider a SARS case, and because there is a 2-3 day lag between cases turning up and being formally reported the the WHO, the data table doesn't always reflect exactly what is in the news.  Once a day I update the table to the current WHO figures. -º¡º

Oh, thanks. By the way, the WHO is somewhat politicized, being run by a parliament; so we can't expect them to be "neutral" in the Wikipedian sense on the status of Taiwan. I think their chart would have been better if made geographical, rather than alphabetical. Anyway, I'm not here to fight, so if my "Taiwan move thing" bugs you, don't worry about hurting my feelings: just revert it. I never engage in edit wars (any more :-) --Uncle Ed 01:35 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ed: Check Section 3, the March 30 entry. There's the confinement that I've heard of so far. Or has the confinement gone beyond the one big apartment building now? -- John Owens


 * John, I was thinking of Singapore.


 * OK, yeah, that one's news to me too, and I didn't see anything about that on the page here. -- John Owens


 * Ed - I find it makes my daily updates easier if I keep our chart in roughly the same order as the WHO chart, even if it confused me at first. Keeping (China) as a footnote to Taiwan was intended to explain the "odd" semi-alphabetical order.  I don't vouch for the NPOV of WHO, nor do I have a meaningful opinion on whether Taiwan should be considered part of China.  But it just seems easier, for now, to keep things in WHO order. I'm leaving your edits for now, but don't be offended if they "magically" revert when the next WHO update comes. -º¡º

Don't worry, I'm very difficult to offend. You're not making nearly enough effort: you must try harder! ;-) Anyone who takes the trouble to explain what they're doing and why, generally gets my support around here. --Uncle Ed

The number of people quarantined are not widely reported by the press here in Singapore. The best figures I can get is between 900 to 1000 for Singapore and more than 1000 in Hong Kong. About the building in Hong Kong, the local govt has moved all the residents of the E block to a quarantine camp. whkoh 3 Apr 03 02:26 UTC


 * Just found and added the number of people quarantined. whkoh 3 Apr 03 02:39 UTC

This sentence:
 * After China suppressed news of the outbreak, the disease spread to Hong Kong and Vietnam in late February 2003, 

could just as well read
 * After China notified WHO about the outbreak, the disease spread to Hong Kong and Vietnam in late February 2003, 

since China notified WHO on February 10, and the first Hong Kong case occurred on February 21. Since both of these statements are not neutral, it's best to discuss China's information policy or lack thereof at more length further down. AxelBoldt 02:52 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Singapore press reports the numbers as:

Total 98, In hospital wards 26, In intensive care 11, Discharged 57, Dead 4.

I think the number Discharged is very interesting and would like to put it in the table, but not really sure what the purpose of a page like this is is it to give the historical data or to be a current news page. For news page I think the 57 should be reported, but as a historic document it is not of interest. Also the data is not really relevant if we can not get the same data from other countries. So I will not put it in the tabel before more of you agree. Stefan 12:51 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've been the one posting the updates from WHO, so I'll add my opinion on what the purpose of the chart is. I believe the chart is meant to be a day-by-day update of how far SARS has spread and how many people it has infected.  I don't like the "discharged" column because there is no one definitive source to get the data from, the data is out of sync with the other columns, and (IMHO) it makes the table too wide.  I'm updating the table now with today's data, and that column is going to disappear.  Can we talk about other ways of reporting releases here? -º¡º


 * I agree on to wide table, I was planning to have the numbers in brackets or something in the cases column, like 100(40) or something, my reson was that we can probably not get that data from most countries. I still think that that data should be published if this is a  "day-by-day update of how far SARS has spread and how many people it has infected." I for one feels much better knowing that there are 57 our of 97 discharged in Singapore, I do not think that has been reported well in the press, we only see the number go up and up. Anyway I will mot update your table unless you agree. Stefan 00:34 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * How about a separate (smaller) table further down in the article? -º¡º

Because this is still a "breaking news" story, I've deleted these two external links to news stories that are over a week old. I'm moving the links here in case anyone wants to reference them. -º¡º
 * "China Raises Tally of Cases and Deaths in Mystery Illness"
 * Airport virus checks urged

A proposal: we are dealing with a basically unknown organism; a brief paragraph on bioterrorism? Much has been said about regimes and germ warfare experiments and its possible relation to the Bush Doctrine. Could 'China' be deliberately testing a naturally-occurring and/or human-modified toxin or biological agent on its own people? Usedbook 19:39 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * This should probably best be done in the context of quoting the opinion of some medical authority on the topic of whether SARS could have been a form of terrorism or germ warfare, instead of just wikipedia speculation. -º¡º


 * Perhaps Bush released it in China so that he could go there and take away their WMD too? Dietary Fiber


 * Oh, please. :-( -- Zoe

why did you take out my recovered cases column. I think that is important information, especially if you have the "deaths" column there.

User:Mjanich

We should graph the number of new cases each day; but need clean data because not all countries are reporting (suspected + probable) the same way.


 * Is anybody working on this excellent suggestion? I'm afraid I don't have the computer skills to produce a graph, but I think it would be really helpful to have a pictorial representation here of the growth in the numbers of reported cases, even if the statistics are not perfectly "clean".  This might allow us to judge for ourselves whether we think it looks like the start of a cataclysmic 1918-like pandemic, or not.  GrahamN 00:57 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Canadian health officials reportedly emphasized that the disease may have originated from China but it's biased towards people of chinese or of other origins.

Is the point that the Canadian officialls stressed that it was biased especially toward Chinese people, or that it affected all people equally? I'm removing from the main page, until someone (perhaps me) rewrites this. --Ryguasu


 * the point was that it affected all people equally. I am working on the sentence now. - User:Kt2

I think the "Racial effects by SARS" part should be deleted. There is no reason to fish out some 'racial' effects for subjects which have nothing whatsoever to do with racism in any calcuable way


 * I'm afraid deleting this section would be a violation of the netural point of view policy. Some people feel that race is a vital concern of many matters that, on the surface, don't seem to be "about race". Apparently, this includes SARS. From these people's perspective, there is probably no "fishing out" going on; they probably see themselves as stating something blatantly obvious. You may disagree that SARS has anything whatsoever to do with racism, and you may add a statement to the effect that some people think this. If you have the evidence, you can even argue that "most people" agree with you. But it's not okay to delete this section on the argument that no "reasonable person" would make a connection to race. --Ryguasu 23:56 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * So if an editor puts paragraphs about the racial effects in articles about everything in sundry such as washingline pegs, it automatically becomes valid?


 * First, I'd like to suggest that we are not currently tumbling down the "slippery slope" you suggest we are on. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I can't imagine that more than a small number of Wikipedia articles currently discuss race at all. Second, I'd answer that if Wikipedians are sincerely placing race analyses in articles about washingline pegs, then those analyses probably deserve to stay, especially if they are accepted by more than a couple of individuals. If they're jokes, we can remove them. If they make use of totally bogus factual claims, we can eliminate those. If they're the writings of a lone crackpot, we can eliminate them. However, I don't think we are in any of these conditions with respect to the SARS article. That said, I think it would be helpful if the article linked to some news articles or web sites explaining more about the Canadian race affair. Perhaps then it would trouble you less. --Ryguasu 02:04 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, there were some racial comments perhaps here and there. Some Chinese people said some things.  The media went bonanza.  The health officials finally spoke up.  Anyways, as a non-Chinese person I find it annoying to see something like this in this article.  We don't need to put every single little thing, just because the media picks it up.   dave 02:26 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd like to stress that the SARS outbreak is a current events. Any organized and thorough analyses needed to be waited until the dust settles. I agree that an encyclopedia article should not include petty things; however on one hand "pettiness" is usually judged by persepctives as Ryguasu have pointed out above. On the other hand including every little thing should give a more complete view on SARS and should be merged in future to a rewritten SARS article. I will be annoyed if these little things are still included 10 years from now. k2


 * The supposed racial aspects of SARS in Canada are wholly fabricated. In Toronto, which has a large Chinese population and where most of the cases are, people are mostly indifferent to SARS (we're in far more danger of dying in traffic), so they aren't getting worked up about the plague-bearing Chinese. if you don't believe me, then give me some confirmable evidence of even one racial incident arising from fear of SARS. Unsubstantiated accusations and questionable "fears" are not evidence, and they should not be cited as evidence in an encyclopedia article. If a racist backlash does develop from the SARS outbreak I'll try to be the first to post the evidence of it.


 * I agree. I live in Kitchener area, was in Toronto last weekend and I'm from Richmond, BC which has a huge Chinese population (1/3rd of the population of almost 200k, mostly from Hong Kong).  These things when they show up in the news are always largely fabricated.  I talked to some people back home in Richmond and they hadn't even thought of the Chinese connection.  They considered it more of a geographical connection than a racial one.  BTW, I like the re-wording of the "Racial effect of sars paragraph".  But I'm still advocating for its deletion from the page entirely.  If we include the racial thing, then we should include the section below entitled "profession discrimination effects of sars" as well.  It's fiction (sort of), but it's lack of clear examples mirrors the lack of examples in the "racial effects" section. dave 02:52 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to increase our subtlety here. The article currently treat "racism" and "racial discrimination" as non-problematic terms, and thus makes sweeping claims like, "since Asian and non-Asian Torontonians continue to mingle freely throughout the city, these fears seemed overblown." Quite simply, a number of people (including, say, a typical professor of Ethnic Studies in the US, or an advocate of "anti-racism") would use the label "racism" for far more subtle effects.


 * Some subtle forms of racism (e.g. suppose, for the sake of argument, that a number of white Canadians had become subtlely, perhaps unconsciously, more antagonistic towards ethnic Chinese) may be hard to detect without being, e.g., ethnic Chinese. If this is part of the kind of racism the Chinese communities in question were wary of, then whether or not SARS has increased racism may not the sort of matter that can readily be settled on the basis of "evidence". In this case, the question for a NPOV encyclopedia is not whether or not racism has "objectively" increased, but simply whether ethnic Chinese think is has, and whether others think is has. Note that the question of what ethnic Chinese think is not readily answered by asking two or three white people if the Chinese have "reason" to feel an increase in racism.


 * In light of all this, I think we should move away from bold, abstract statements like "there is no evidence of racial discrimination" (what's "this"?), and instead say, e.g., "there is no generally accepted evidence that the Canadian government has treated ethnic Chinese different from any other group with respect to SARS." This may make everybody happier. --Ryguasu


 * I think there's just too much fuzziness with the sources and authenticity of these racial claims. It should be left off unless there is a survey of (chinese or non-chinese) people that is performed, and which has > 90% confidence level and proves the hypothesis that the chinese or non-chinese feel differently about one another since the outbreak.  Let me emphasize, that they should feel differently than they did before.  If someone was already somewhat squimish about the chinese people before SARS then they don't count.  Show us a survey in the future, and then this whole thing will have some meaning and justification to it.  Otherwise, I vote for its complete and utter deletion.  It's hearsay as far as I can tell.  I did find some articles on google a few days ago, but it smelled a bit like tabloid trash, as the incidents were just isolated incidents and the media was just blowing it out of proportion as per usual.  dave 05:35 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * If there's good reason for thinking that this is all just "tabloid trash", then it should be relatively easy to a coherent argument along these lines to the article. I view this as a superior alternative to deleting the race section. After all, the situation of a scarry disease coming from a foreign land obvious could, in theory, result in some kind of racism. I can't see why you object so strongly to the article trying to assess the extent to which racial effects are being felt in practice. Some people care deeply about these questions. --Ryguasu 17:14 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * The section does not try to assess the extent of to which racial effects are being felt. It adduces no definitive evidence of racism. Those arguing for its inclusion adduce no evidence of racism. The further argument that there may be subtle effects that cannot be detected is equivalent to saying there are no effects -- an undetectable effect is not an effect. We may eventually find evidence of such effects, but until we do there is no justification for claiming that SARS has aroused racism. The accusations of racism so far seem chiefly to be isolated outbursts of hysteria, or, on Shelly Martel's part, of carefully calculated malevolence and opportunism. I do not, by the way, believe the section should be removed, but an attempt should be made to reflect the actual social process going on. I think it is an interesting characteristic of modern society that these accusations can be so glibly made in the absence of any evidence, while on the other hand people can get vehement about the entirely reasonable contention that China could have done more to contain the disease -- the contention may not in the end prove to be valid, but there is definitely evidence which can be used to evaluate it.

I see someone just had to polish up the section on racism to make the accusations seem more plausible while retaining a spurious air of objectivity. Fifty years ago, people saw Reds under every bed. Now they see racists. "When there's no evidence of communism/racism, that's when the communists/racists are at their most insidious." What next? -- "members of some political communities expressed concern that the outbreak was organized by the international Jewish conspiracy"?


 * I'll humbly take credit for the polishing...but it wasn't so much rewording it, I think putting in a few quotes is what makes it stronger. Now it just sounds like it is reporting on what is in the news instead of personal speculation from us wikipedians.  So I guess in other words it ended up being more NPOV.  Previously, the section said something to effect of "torontians are still walking around freely" and "business in down in chinatown, but all the customers of chinatown are chinese anyways".  Whether or not these are true, they had no quotes around them, nor do we have no idea who said them, and cannot assess the credibility of the source.  I guess everything in news is really all about the spin in the end... dave 00:41 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * So having something in quotation marks takes priority over "whether or not these [assertions] are true"? Making an acusation is more important than substantiating it? The firsthand reports of people who actually live in southern Ontario are less worthy of consideration than unsubstantiated accusations printed in newspapers? The press is not an authority. According to the press, the American attack on Iraq is an act of American benevolence. Anyway, if you want to assess my credibility, go to http://www.coolth.com and send me an e-mail through the e-mail link. We could probably have a more productive discussion of the issue that way. As you will see, I am not opposed to the idea that there is racism in Canada or anywhere. I just think worrying about non-existent racism is a waste of an anti-racist's time.

Buddy's already said he's not going to believe me, but I'd say any decline in shoppers in T.O. is general. There seem to be a lot fewer people downtown these days. Not surprising when the press is full of stories of a killer disease whose symptoms are pretty much the same as a cold's.

The following was recently placed on the article as a joke (and then removed):

Profession discrimination effects of SARS
The Ontario Medical Association and the Nurses Union Local 1588 have expressed concern that their professions may be discriminated against due to the SARS virus. Apparently some patients no longer want to go near them, no longer want to go into any hospital, and some waitresses at a local restaurant across from Sick Kids hospital in Toronto refused to serve a group of doctors (even though the give the biggest tips) and nurses for fear of catching the deadly SARS virus. Other professions, such as bus drivers, actually come in "coughing distance" with a much larger percentage of the population on a day-to-day basis. Doctors have said that in fact bus drivers are just as suceptable to SARS as they are. This hasn't changed the opinion of some Canadians though. "I don't care, I'm not going near my family doctor unless he has a mask on. Actually, he'd better be wearing a chemical suit," said one Canadian.

I've noticed repeated removals of the Western complaints of Chinese foot-dragging on revealing the initial outbreak to the outside world. Is some contributor trying to suppress this for a reason?

Even if the accusations of cover-up and secrecy are untrue, those accusations were made. If they're attributed to the accuser and have significance, they should be left in.

Here's one way a cover-up might be significant: immediately telling other countries about a disease helps them to prevent its spread, while hushing it up helps the disease to spread.

Please, let's not suppress the Chinese suppression of news about the outbreak, any more, okay? --Uncle Ed 18:13 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Accusations that China suppressed news of the outbreak
Gady A. Epstein, Sun Foreign Staff, writes in SunSpot.net:

"The situation here is safe," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Tuesday, fielding questions from reporters who have not received responses from the health ministry. "The Chinese government has not covered up this disease. There is no need for us to cover up. We don't want to see anybody make use of the SARS issue to sully China's reputation."

Such comments were directed in part at the Chinese public. Because of a virtual blackout on news about SARS in the state-run media, people have gathered details about the disease mostly from the Internet and rumors, prompting criticism that the virus might have spread more quickly because of a lack of public warnings.

ABC News Online writes in

The world should cut all travel links to China for the "grossly negligent" way it has handled a killer pneumonia virus which has now infected 1,700 people in 15 countries, US newspaper The Wall Street Journal said.

The paper, which deemed Beijing's actions as a "cover-up" noted that mystery still surrounds the virus, which erupted in southern China and has now killed at least 62 people.

"But there's no mystery about why it is spreading worldwide," the paper said in its lead editorial.

"This is the price of China's initial cover-up.

"Given Beijing's refusal to take even elementary public health measures, some hard choices are called for.

"The most effective way to halt the spread of the disease would be for other countries to suspend all travel links with China until it has implemented a transparent public health campaign."

It would also be necessary to suspend flights to Hong Kong, which has become a transit point for travellers spreading the disease, the editorial said.

China provided little information about the virus on Monday, which it said last week had killed 34 people nationwide.

But regional airlines have already cut some operations to China and elsewhere amid the scare.

The United States last week curtailed government visits to China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan and warned Americans against travel there due to the outbreak of the mysterious disease.

Concluding its acidic editorial, the newspaper blamed China for covering up health problems in the past, adding "this time China's problem is also the world's, and a global quarantine may be the only way to get it to act responsibly".

Anil K Jospeh of rediff.com wrote "China denies covering up SARS spread":

China, the worst-affected by the deadly outbreak of atypical pneumonia, on Tuesday refuted international criticism of trying to cover up the spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which has so far claimed over 62 lives world-wide.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said concerned departments are working on the latest data, which would be released soon.

Liu also said business visitors and tourists to China did not face any epidemic threat since it has been contained effectively in the affected provinces Beijing, Shanxi and Guangdong provinces.

He criticised anti-China comments in the Western media and warned against attempts to sully the communist nation's image.

When questioned about the delay in publishing the latest data concerning the spread of SARS, he merely said that concerned government departments were doing their jobs in a systematic and scientific way.