Forum Archive Index - April 2003

[Robin Benson <rob@hammerheadmedia.co.uk>]

Hi Lazy Haggis

In general, it appears prudent to take simple precautions against this 
outbreak, with specific reference to how the virus is transmitted. If 
this means avoiding well-defined hotspots, then there may be some merit 
in doing do.

Being informed, and ensuring the circulation of accurate data as the 
situation changes would seem an important part of containment.

Cheers

Robin

On Sunday, Apr 27, 2003, at 20:19 Europe/London, Lazy Haggis wrote:

> There are various SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) hotspots 
> around the world which the WHO (World Health Organisation) is now 
> recommending, as a measure of precaution, that persons planning to 
> travel to these destinations consider postponing all but essential 
> travel.
>
> The damaging effect to the economies of these countries has been 
> significant, and the follow on downstream negative effects to the New 
> Zealand economy has started already to flow. For example, the effect 
> on the airline industry, general tourism and rock lobster exports, to 
> name but a small few.
>
> Clearly if New Zealand also became a WHO hotspot through the 
> unfortunate spread of SARS, the economy would suffer major negative 
> ramifications for quite some time, and therefore it would be prudent 
> for the government and all New Zealand citizens to ensure that such 
> does not occur. The introduction of voluntary preventative measures 
> may be painful, but may also save the day.
>
> Does the forum think it's a good idea to suggest in general (until 
> much better control of the spread of the deadly mutating SARS virus 
> has been implemented) that the general public should voluntarily avoid 
> places which could be inundated (directly and/or indirectly) by people 
> from these higher risk countries and continents as advised by the WHO.
>
> For example, would it be good idea to suggest that people should avoid 
> businesses like SKY City Entertainment (SKC) casinos for a while, at 
> least until the spread of SARS subsides, or should we just ignore the 
> potential risk to New Zealand and continue on regardless?
>
> Such action may negatively effect the price of SKC shares and such 
> like, but what a small price to pay for the overall better interests 
> of the country at large.
>
> Your opinions would be very much appreciated.
>
> Good Health,
> Lazy Haggis.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/