WI: No Iraq War but SARS-COV (SARS) become a pandemic

What if we have a SARS Pandemic worse than OTL-COVID at the turn of the 21st century instead of the Iraq War. The first cases were confirmed in November 2002 shortly after the Midterms. WI it wasn't detected until January 2003 and it became a full-blown pandemic in March that year.

How will society change with a SARS pandemic?
 
SARS was 10-12% lethal so if you had it spreading as much as covid. Well, there'd be turnover in politics from politicians dying of it for sure, nevermind economic effects.
 
Warning
If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was much worse than COVID-19, it would have had a severe significant impact on global health, economies, and international relations. Here are some possible scenarios:

Health impact: SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, had a higher case fatality rate (CFR) than COVID-19, which means that a higher percentage of people who got infected died from the disease. The CFR of SARS was estimated to be around 9-10%, compared to around 1-2% for COVID-19. If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2003 that was as infectious as COVID-19 but remained more lethal than COVID-19, it would have caused a much higher number of deaths worldwide. The WHO estimated that the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 caused around 8,000 cases and 774 deaths in 29 countries. If the SARS pandemic had spread as widely as COVID-19, it could have caused 380-500 millions deaths worldwide.

Economic impact: A SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19 would have had a severe impact on the global economy. During the SARS outbreak, many countries implemented travel restrictions, quarantine measures, and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. These measures had a significant impact on international trade, tourism, and other industries. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread and lethal, these measures could have been more stringent and longer-lasting, causing a more severe economic downturn.

International relations: The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 strained international relations, especially between China and other countries. China was criticized for initially covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread as COVID-19, China and the CCP would face public and international scrutiny just like it did in OTL with COVID for covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community . The response of other countries to the outbreak could also have caused diplomatic and political friction.

Public health preparedness: If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19, it could have led to a significant increase in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases. The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 highlighted the need for better surveillance systems, rapid diagnostics, and effective treatments and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases. If a more severe SARS pandemic had occurred, it could have accelerated progress in these areas and led to better preparedness for future pandemics.

The impact of the SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 on the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would depend on several factors, including the severity of the pandemic, the effectiveness of the response, and the perception of the public. The response of the Bush administration to the SARS pandemic would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The administration would have relied on public health agencies such as the CDC and NIH to coordinate the response and develop strategies to contain the spread of the virus. The administration would also have worked with international organizations such as the WHO and other countries to coordinate a global response. SARS could have become a major issue in the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would have been scrutinized by the public and Bush might lose re-election to John Kerry or any Democrat nominee. The administration's response would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on public health agencies and international partners to coordinate a global response.

Firstly, the severity and impact of the SARS pandemic on the United States would have played a significant role. If the pandemic had been more widespread and deadly than OTL COVID-19, it could have led to a significant loss of life and economic disruption with up to 23.2 million Americans dead from SARS. The public's perception of how the Bush administration handled the pandemic response would have been a critical factor in the election outcome.

Secondly, John Kerry's response to the pandemic and his proposed policies to address the crisis would have also played a role. Kerry was a vocal critic of the Bush administration's handling of the SARS outbreak in 2002-2007 and called for increased funding for public health agencies and better preparedness for future outbreaks. If Kerry had presented a clear and effective plan to address the SARS pandemic, it could have boosted his chances of winning the election.

Thirdly, other issues and factors such as the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and the public's perception of the candidates' leadership and character would have also influenced the election outcome.

Overall, a SARS pandemic in 2003-2007 that is much worse than COVID-19 would have had a significant and severe impact on global health, economies, and international relations. The response to such a pandemic could have led to major changes in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases.

 
Last edited:
If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was much worse than COVID-19, it would have had a severe significant impact on global health, economies, and international relations. Here are some possible scenarios:

Health impact: SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, had a higher case fatality rate (CFR) than COVID-19, which means that a higher percentage of people who got infected died from the disease. The CFR of SARS was estimated to be around 9-10%, compared to around 1-2% for COVID-19. If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2003 that was as infectious as COVID-19 but remained more lethal than COVID-19, it would have caused a much higher number of deaths worldwide. The WHO estimated that the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 caused around 8,000 cases and 774 deaths in 29 countries. If the SARS pandemic had spread as widely as COVID-19, it could have caused 380-500 millions deaths worldwide.

Economic impact: A SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19 would have had a severe impact on the global economy. During the SARS outbreak, many countries implemented travel restrictions, quarantine measures, and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. These measures had a significant impact on international trade, tourism, and other industries. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread and lethal, these measures could have been more stringent and longer-lasting, causing a more severe economic downturn.

International relations: The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 strained international relations, especially between China and other countries. China was criticized for initially covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread as COVID-19, China and the CCP would face public and international scrutiny just like it did in OTL with COVID for covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community . The response of other countries to the outbreak could also have caused diplomatic and political friction.

Public health preparedness: If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19, it could have led to a significant increase in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases. The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 highlighted the need for better surveillance systems, rapid diagnostics, and effective treatments and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases. If a more severe SARS pandemic had occurred, it could have accelerated progress in these areas and led to better preparedness for future pandemics.

The impact of the SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 on the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would depend on several factors, including the severity of the pandemic, the effectiveness of the response, and the perception of the public. The response of the Bush administration to the SARS pandemic would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The administration would have relied on public health agencies such as the CDC and NIH to coordinate the response and develop strategies to contain the spread of the virus. The administration would also have worked with international organizations such as the WHO and other countries to coordinate a global response. SARS could have become a major issue in the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would have been scrutinized by the public and Bush might lose re-election to John Kerry or any Democrat nominee. The administration's response would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on public health agencies and international partners to coordinate a global response.

Firstly, the severity and impact of the SARS pandemic on the United States would have played a significant role. If the pandemic had been more widespread and deadly than OTL COVID-19, it could have led to a significant loss of life and economic disruption with up to 23.2 million Americans dead from SARS. The public's perception of how the Bush administration handled the pandemic response would have been a critical factor in the election outcome.

Secondly, John Kerry's response to the pandemic and his proposed policies to address the crisis would have also played a role. Kerry was a vocal critic of the Bush administration's handling of the SARS outbreak in 2002-2007 and called for increased funding for public health agencies and better preparedness for future outbreaks. If Kerry had presented a clear and effective plan to address the SARS pandemic, it could have boosted his chances of winning the election.

Thirdly, other issues and factors such as the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and the public's perception of the candidates' leadership and character would have also influenced the election outcome.

Overall, a SARS pandemic in 2003-2007 that is much worse than COVID-19 would have had a significant and severe impact on global health, economies, and international relations. The response to such a pandemic could have led to major changes in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases.


ChatGPT?
 
If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was much worse than COVID-19, it would have had a severe significant impact on global health, economies, and international relations. Here are some possible scenarios:

Health impact: SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, had a higher case fatality rate (CFR) than COVID-19, which means that a higher percentage of people who got infected died from the disease. The CFR of SARS was estimated to be around 9-10%, compared to around 1-2% for COVID-19. If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2003 that was as infectious as COVID-19 but remained more lethal than COVID-19, it would have caused a much higher number of deaths worldwide. The WHO estimated that the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 caused around 8,000 cases and 774 deaths in 29 countries. If the SARS pandemic had spread as widely as COVID-19, it could have caused 380-500 millions deaths worldwide.

Economic impact: A SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19 would have had a severe impact on the global economy. During the SARS outbreak, many countries implemented travel restrictions, quarantine measures, and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. These measures had a significant impact on international trade, tourism, and other industries. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread and lethal, these measures could have been more stringent and longer-lasting, causing a more severe economic downturn.

International relations: The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 strained international relations, especially between China and other countries. China was criticized for initially covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community. If the SARS pandemic had been more widespread as COVID-19, China and the CCP would face public and international scrutiny just like it did in OTL with COVID for covering up the outbreak and not sharing information with the international community . The response of other countries to the outbreak could also have caused diplomatic and political friction.

Public health preparedness: If a SARS pandemic had occurred in 2002-2007 that was more lethal than COVID-19, it could have led to a significant increase in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases. The SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 highlighted the need for better surveillance systems, rapid diagnostics, and effective treatments and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases. If a more severe SARS pandemic had occurred, it could have accelerated progress in these areas and led to better preparedness for future pandemics.

The impact of the SARS pandemic in 2002-2007 on the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would depend on several factors, including the severity of the pandemic, the effectiveness of the response, and the perception of the public. The response of the Bush administration to the SARS pandemic would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The administration would have relied on public health agencies such as the CDC and NIH to coordinate the response and develop strategies to contain the spread of the virus. The administration would also have worked with international organizations such as the WHO and other countries to coordinate a global response. SARS could have become a major issue in the 2004 US presidential election and the response of the Bush administration would have been scrutinized by the public and Bush might lose re-election to John Kerry or any Democrat nominee. The administration's response would likely have been similar to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on public health agencies and international partners to coordinate a global response.

Firstly, the severity and impact of the SARS pandemic on the United States would have played a significant role. If the pandemic had been more widespread and deadly than OTL COVID-19, it could have led to a significant loss of life and economic disruption with up to 23.2 million Americans dead from SARS. The public's perception of how the Bush administration handled the pandemic response would have been a critical factor in the election outcome.

Secondly, John Kerry's response to the pandemic and his proposed policies to address the crisis would have also played a role. Kerry was a vocal critic of the Bush administration's handling of the SARS outbreak in 2002-2007 and called for increased funding for public health agencies and better preparedness for future outbreaks. If Kerry had presented a clear and effective plan to address the SARS pandemic, it could have boosted his chances of winning the election.

Thirdly, other issues and factors such as the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and the public's perception of the candidates' leadership and character would have also influenced the election outcome.

Overall, a SARS pandemic in 2003-2007 that is much worse than COVID-19 would have had a significant and severe impact on global health, economies, and international relations. The response to such a pandemic could have led to major changes in public health preparedness and research funding for infectious diseases.


Using procedural generation to generate a multiparagraph response to a post isn't really any better than spam. I don't mind its use as part of a creative process, but you clearly didn't even read what you posted. The OP stipulates no Iraq war and your text mentions the Iraq war.
A C- student essay based on skimming the Wikipedia articple about SARS wouldn't be a good contribution, and using ChatGPT to make one doesn't make it any better.

The youtube video is a perfectly fine contribution, you could have just posted that.
 
I don't care if people are using ChatGPT here, but show some common sense about how you use it. In this case, we just have a big blob of mediocrity. One difference between ChatGPT and other forms of procedural generation is that it tends to just produce bland predictable mediocrity instead of colorful stuff. Instead of responding to a WI about Columbus sailing for the Portuguese with [perhaps this means {%BYZANTINE%} {%ZEPPELINS%}] the way an AH.com mad libs bot might, we just get a wordy rehash of the Wikipedia article on Columbus.

Absolutely use it for inspiration, or maybe you want a school book paragraph about something that happened in your TL, but use it judiciously.
 
SARS may have more lethal than Covid 19 [1] but was it more easily spread? [2]
I recall (not a biologist/ epidemiologist so might be wrong) that SARS also showed symptoms such as high temperature before it became properly transmissable. That could be used for rapid screening of travellers for example.
More lethal but less spreadable can make a big difference, but surely more readily detected is an even bigger advantage (for us) over Covid.

[1] Fat stupid fingers originally typed Covid 29, but that's still under development and top secret, so please don't say anything!
[2] Passing contact with someone with covid resulted in 55% infection rate in my group last year. Probably an omicron variant which was notoriously catchable, but still disturbingly easy to catch given we were more careful than the average joe public.
 
K, I am also skeptical the post was entirely original, but where does it say they used it?

Other than it being obvious? This isn't worthy of legalistic quibbling, dude, they posted a big old blob of text that was barely relevant to the OP and there is less than zero reason to argue about exactly where said blob came from.
 
Other than it being obvious? This isn't worthy of legalistic quibbling, dude, they posted a big old blob of text that was barely relevant to the OP and there is less than zero reason to argue about exactly where said blob came from.
This isn't legalistic nothing: I said I have my doubts (mostly the way it's written doesn't read like
Gigachad3k's usual stuff), but that doesn't make me confident to go accusing randos on the internet

I get this isn't the right place to discuss, so I'll quit it here
 
What if we have a SARS Pandemic worse than OTL-COVID at the turn of the 21st century instead of the Iraq War. The first cases were confirmed in November 2002 shortly after the Midterms. WI it wasn't detected until January 2003 and it became a full-blown pandemic in March that year.

How will society change with a SARS pandemic?
Being 10-12% lethal will cause a lock down across the world till things are under control in a couple of years. Then we will see in 2005-2006 a massive influx of cash back into the economy due to people not really being able to send it for 2 years creating inflation. Loosing 11% of the population will cause a spike in new babies.
 
Despite all his flaws W knew what a pandemic was his administration would act swiftly and with bipartisan support. The death toll in the United States with a little luck could be kept under 1 million.
 
Last edited:
Assuming a comparable R (infection) rate?

*Fear will cause an even more widespread initial lockdown for a longer period of time

*More people will skip work when possible, teleworking becomes more widespread but much more primitive and fragmented while better programs/methods evolve

*Spike in overall deaths in mid-late 2003 as hospital beds simply are not available

*Tighter international restrictions limit trade making shortages much worse

*North Korea, just recovered from its starvation period, may collapse entirely early on (this is bad)

*Very gradual return of commerce with heavy debt loads by governments from subsidization and investment in research

*Likely a wave of backlash against any population suspected to be involved

*Home delivery services and telecom companies take off, this time with more regional diversity

*Slightly less rural impact as more rural hospitals are still open

*Lots more home gardens and less meat in the Western diet especially as agricultural shortages loom

*At least 2008 before a return to 'normal' with politicial schisms less intense though at least as durable

*Perhaps less overall resistance to mass vaccinations

*Smartphones take off upon release in 2004 and Apple becomes an even wealthier company even more quickly than OTL

*Hui and Han (and Uighur?) tensions in China are worse than OTL and while contained push parts of the country perilously close to civil war - after the war the One Child Policy may be lifted entirely

*Closer EU integration, possibly for NAFTA as well

*Might save some domestic US manufacturing capacity as need for medical equipment tools up

Remember, at 10-12% infection rate globally, this means a lot of bodies to bury. Please note that fear and discontent are among the most infectious things you may ever see, even in a health care setting, so do not underestimate their impact under these conditions. If not done properly, secondary plagues may result, especially if there are isolated pockets of more dead than people available or willing to bury them. Incineration of the dead on a mass scale is likely, especially in the early days.

Given almost 700M cases worldwide to date with current population of 8B, and assuming 7M deaths worldwide now, with 6.4B people to start, and assuming 560M cases worldwide, that's 56M to 70M dead. Or about 1% of the planet's population. And this does not account for those who may also die for peripherally related reasons - lack of food, medicine, hospital beds, etc. for uninfected patients. If the spike of deaths from such causes in late 2003/early 2004 is large enough, or if the 10-12% is based only on -officially reported- numbers, total deaths could go to double that or higher.
 
Last edited:
Dumb question: SARS had a 10~12% death rate but also was spread more slowly, was it possible that the virus would develop variants like COVID did and the main one had a lower death rate (maybe around 5~6%) and faster spreading?
 
Dumb question: SARS had a 10~12% death rate but also was spread more slowly, was it possible that the virus would develop variants like COVID did and the main one had a lower death rate (maybe around 5~6%) and faster spreading?

I don't know how plausible it is but viruses which have low lethality are usually better to spread since their victims are not killed. Diseases which almost always kill their victims and yet very rapidly are not so effective on spreading. This is reason why for example ebola hasn't spread out of Africa.
 
I don't know how plausible it is but viruses which have low lethality are usually better to spread since their victims are not killed. Diseases which almost always kill their victims and yet very rapidly are not so effective on spreading. This is reason why for example ebola hasn't spread out of Africa.
Ebola is contagious rather than infectious, so is much harder to spread - essentially close contacts only are at risk and carers can keep the risk down by good hygiene and basic protective gear.
SARS, covid, measles are very easily spread airborne and not just by aerosols [1], and so are much harder to protect against.
The one good thing with SARS was that people developed a temperature before becoming fully infectious so they could be quickly and effectively screened, and isolated if need be. Covid is particularly nasty as it becomes infectious before symptoms show, and can also be infectious in people who are completely symptom free. Tests are either quite intrusive, moderately unpleasant and slow or are faster but not that reliable.

[1] I've heard medical specialists describing measles infectiousness as pretty much if you walk past an open door while infectious you can affect the whole room. There were a few covid cases in Australia where people got infected (with delta variant which was less transmissable than later omicron variants) by minimal exposure eg opening a door to a corridor after someone had walked past, or entering a lift after an infected person had used it. One of the omicron outbreaks in New Zealand occurred when a barrier between incoming and outgoing quarantine streams was only droplet proof and not fully upgraded to airtight.
 
I don't know how plausible it is but viruses which have low lethality are usually better to spread since their victims are not killed. Diseases which almost always kill their victims and yet very rapidly are not so effective on spreading. This is reason why for example ebola hasn't spread out of Africa.

Correct. Which means milder strains have an evolutionary advantage. See Omicron displacing Delta in OTL.

We didn't have high speed Internet in homes back then (at least not ad widespread) so remote work wouldn't have been an alternative.
 
What if we have a SARS Pandemic worse than OTL-COVID at the turn of the 21st century instead of the Iraq War. The first cases were confirmed in November 2002 shortly after the Midterms. WI it wasn't detected until January 2003 and it became a full-blown pandemic in March that year.

How will society change with a SARS pandemic?

So it's worth remembering that in 2001 there was a wave of anthrax attacks that prompted a bunch of attention on biosecurity. An emerging respiratory pandemic would have been something they may have planned for, but I don't think they would have had the vaccine technologies that we did for SARS-CoV-19: outcomes would have been much worse, although not quite black death level. Also the tech sector is much less developed: zoom doesn't exist, video chat in its infancy, bandwidth much lower, people are on dialup. No google docs.

I expect mass death as shutdowns become much more difficult, and more industries work in person. If they have to shut down, productivity impact is greater. More masks and infection checks.

My guess is some sort of vaccine is produced within six months, with Bush more willing to push hard against the FDA and get significant resources behind development. It will likely be less effective. Rollout ends up where we are today, but likely with much more emphasis on giving the vaccine to poor countries. Say what you want about Bush, but PEPFAR was his baby. This likely means the US has a much more positive reputation in Africa.

China is likely to be much less liked: their initial concealment resulted in major disaster, and they don't have the strength after a few decades of economic growth they do today. I expect this could go as far as Taiwan independence. However the party will likely remain strong. Russia I think ends up rejecting Putin: he doesn't have the strength he has today after much consolidation, and another war in Chechnya is too much.
 
Wonder what al-Qaeda does during the pandemic. Perhaps it could ironically reduce terrorism since Osama would be too concerned about the virus for his group to do much lest they fall ill.
 
Top