(CDC) Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Zika Virus alert

[Ein]

http://www.cdc.gov/zika/

Brazil has reported a surge of Zika virus diagnoses.

It spreads via mosquito carrying the virus. It has been confirmed to spread through sexual intercourse in a recent Texas case as it was found in semen.

The virus is difficult to diagnose since it has very common symptoms. Pregnant women can pass the virus to the fetus which can cause birth defects, such as a smaller skull size for the infant, and other complications.

(CDC) Center for Disease Control and Prevention has declared it an international crisis and has advised Brazil to warn its citizens to not have children and women to not get pregnant for 2 years to assess the virus.

CDC has also advised people to avoid traveling to countries where the virus has been identified.

Much of what I know about the virus comes from my Anthropology professor.

No one knows what to do about the virus. Not having children would be one way to prevent fetuses and infants from being infected but such a practice will be difficult to promote especially in the face of religious countries as is the case in Brazil.

[SaltyBucket]

Oh god... This is bad... I know some people that moved to Brazil. Is there any chance of the virus spreading across the globe?

[Water Mage]

From someone who is living in one of the most affected areas,

They are already telling people to wait a year or 2 to get pregnant.

But we do have a problem,

The Olympics. A perfect place for it to spread around the world, considering they are suspecting that it was the World Cup that bought the Zika Virus to Brazil in the first place.

[dondon151]

Oh god... This is bad... I know some people that moved to Brazil. Is there any chance of the virus spreading across the globe?

well it kind of already has spread around the globe

it's confined to regions nearer to the equator because its vector doesn't do well in temperate climates, but that could change in the future as a combined result of evolution and climate change.

but if you live in a temperate region (most of US, canada, europe etc.) then you probably shouldn't worry about it

Edited February 4, 2016 by dondon151

[Nobody]

It's worth noting that the probability of dying because of Zika is very, very low. The disease itself is just like a flu. The worrisome thing is that if a pregnant woman catch it, there's a big probability their child will be born with microcephaly, which is really terrible. It's no Ebola, though.

Either way, the effect it has on fetuses is so bad that it's definitely a calamity.

Not having children would be one way to prevent fetuses and infants from being infected but such a practice will be difficult to promote especially in the face of religious countries as is the case in Brazil.

Eh, I don't think Brazil is that much of a religious country, and people here don't have that many children. The fertility rate is actually lower than that of the US, for example. And most people do seem to be delaying pregnancies.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Nobody

[Rapier]

The only problem with the mosquito is that, apparently, it also transmits two other nasty diseases (chikungunya and dengue). There have been cases of dengue (well, I'm not sure if it has another name overseas. Probably not) where I live, and it has killed people before. That's what worries me the most.

Eh, I don't think Brazil is that much of a religious country, and people here don't have that many children. The fertility rate is actually lower than that of the US, for example. And most people do seem to be delaying pregnancies.

Although there is a religious (or declared religious) majority on Brazil, I don't think it influences people to have less children. As far as I know, the poor still have lots of children (more than 2, usually) and early (late teen years or early adult years), while the middle class and the rich class has less, usually one or two tops. And the worst is, it is the poor that suffer the most from this, since they have more children and live in areas with poor sanitation.

EDIT: Oh, I see. But I don't remember anything in Brazil that demonizes condoms or other preservatives due to religious pressure. I'd generalize that brazilians are more "liberal" minded than reactionary minded. It's quite the contrary here.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Rapier

[eclipse]

well it kind of already has spread around the globe

it's confined to regions nearer to the equator because its vector doesn't do well in temperate climates, but that could change in the future as a combined result of evolution and climate change.

but if you live in a temperate region (most of US, canada, europe etc.) then you probably shouldn't worry about it

I'm in a tropical climate with a lot of mosquitoes, but I don't think it'll be that--

The only problem with the mosquito is that, apparently, it also transmits two other nasty diseases (chikungunya and dengue). There have been cases of dengue (well, I'm not sure if it has another name overseas. Probably not) where I live, and it has killed people before. That's what worries me the most.

SHIT.

Hawaii (otherwise known as "The Big Island") has been fighting a dengue outbreak for a few months. Knowing that those same critters could be carrying Zika worries me a little (not 'cause I live on that island, but because inter-island travel is super-common).

And to add the cherry to this mess of a sundae, I'm a woman of child-bearing age. I seriously hope the guys at CDC can come up with something better than "don't have kids for a while". Could open up a giant discussion regarding reproductive rights/education/other crap, but I'd rather not.

Edited February 4, 2016 by eclipse

[Rapier]

And to add the cherry to this mess of a sundae, I'm a woman of child-bearing age. I seriously hope the guys at CDC can come up with something better than "don't have kids for a while". Could open up a giant discussion regarding reproductive rights/education/other crap, but I'd rather not.

The best that I've seen was an interview with a doctor, who advised to walk around with long sleeved clothes, pants with long legs and always use repellent sprays especially when going outside. While not exactly foolproof, it seems like a good advice.

The one "good" thing about the widespread of this disease is that other countries are also alarmed by it and are willing to cooperate in order to develop a vaccine. Brazil's medicine is awful enough to handle these diseases alone, exterior help is more than welcome. I hope they can also develop a vaccine against dengue (which I think shouldn't be that difficult, since the virus is just one of a kind).

[Original Alear]

Just curious, is the zika virus chronic? I was trying to figure it out, and it doesn't look like it, but I'm not completely sure.

[blah the Prussian]

Here we have the next Ebola, that being a disease that doesn't really do much worldwide but everyone loses their shit over and uses as an excuse to close borders.

[eclipse]

Here we have the next Ebola, that being a disease that doesn't really do much worldwide but everyone loses their shit over and uses as an excuse to close borders.

. . .I think telling women to not get pregnant due to the increased risk of birth defects is a pretty big deal. I also happen to live somewhere where it's got a higher chance than most of affecting me, so yeah. . .

[Naughx]

@Clipsey, avoiding mosquito bites is pretty much the only thing that you can do on your side.

Since in can spread a lot of viral infections.

It seems that the same mosquito specie spreads:

- Yellow Fever

- Dengue

- Zika

- Chikungunya

---

Some species of mosquitoes can infect you with the West Nile Virus if it is a carrier.

There is a reason to why it is called the most deadly animal on earth.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Naughx

[blah the Prussian]

. . .I think telling women to not get pregnant due to the increased risk of birth defects is a pretty big deal. I also happen to live somewhere where it's got a higher chance than most of affecting me, so yeah. . .

Oh, Ebola was a big deal, and so is this. Its just that the media will absolutely blow it out of proportion and make it out to be the end of humanity like they did with Ebola.

[Naughx]

Oh, Ebola was a big deal, and so is this. Its just that the media will absolutely blow it out of proportion and make it out to be the end of humanity like they did with Ebola.

Ebola required contacts with human fluids to spread. (Or fluids from fruit bats or some apes)

Avoiding mosquitoes bites is way harder than avoiding contacts with an infected person.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

Edited February 4, 2016 by Naughx

[blah the Prussian]

Ebola required contacts with human fluids to spread. (Or fluids from fruit bats or some apes)

Avoiding mosquitoes bites is way harder than avoiding contacts with an infected person.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

Fair enough. It's still not going to be the end of humanity.

[amiabletemplar]

Ebola required contacts with human fluids to spread. (Or fluids from fruit bats or some apes)

Avoiding mosquitoes bites is way harder than avoiding contacts with an infected person.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

At the same time, zika (and all these other things) don't have a supermassive death rate like ebola does (average 50% fatality rate, ranges from 25% up to 90%).

And although these viruses can be spread by a nonhuman disease vector, that vector--at least for now--is confined to tropical latitudes. Otherwise, zika is exactly the same as ebola--requires contact with body fluids in order to transmit. Yes, it's terrible that we now have a disease that causes infant deformity and which can spread by sexual contact. But, while this is a serious issue, it really isn't cause for alarm at this point.

The bigger concern: how long does a person remain a carrier of the virus? Is it something you'll always have with you, like HSV-1 (which causes cold sores), or is it like influenza, just a passing thing? If the former, then definitely something like the upcoming Olympic games could be a major concern, because it will create lots of lifelong carriers. On the other hand, if it's just a temporary thing, then it will peter out in the same way a regular flu outbreak does, just faster (because only the very sexually active and currently infectious can spread it). Nothing I've seen suggests that the virus remains in the body after the initial infection is fought off. So, like I said: a serious issue, in the sense that it should be addressed and finding a treatment/vaccine (especially for women of child-bearing age and interest) would be a Good Thing. But not a pants-wetting scenario, not a human-race-ending problem.

Honestly, ebola scares me a hell of a lot more than this, because flipping from "may cause birth defects, 60%-80% of non-fetal cases have no symptoms" to "hideously lethal" seems like a much bigger jump than "only spreads by direct contact with body fluids" to "spreads by aerosol droplets from coughing/sneezing."

[Naughx]

Honestly, ebola scares me a hell of a lot more than this, because flipping from "may cause birth defects, 60%-80% of non-fetal cases have no symptoms" to "hideously lethal" seems like a much bigger jump than "only spreads by direct contact with body fluids" to "spreads by aerosol droplets from coughing/sneezing."

Are you aware of any virus that changed its mode of transmission in a very short period of time? (Less than 10,000 years)

Not that it doesn't happen, just that it usually takes a very long time.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Naughx

[Phoenix Wright]

Fair enough. It's still not going to be the end of humanity.

thatdoesn't matter. it's still dangerous, and it's still spreading quickly. it needs to be contained as much as possible, as far as possible.

[eclipse]

At the same time, zika (and all these other things) don't have a supermassive death rate like ebola does (average 50% fatality rate, ranges from 25% up to 90%).

And although these viruses can be spread by a nonhuman disease vector, that vector--at least for now--is confined to tropical latitudes. Otherwise, zika is exactly the same as ebola--requires contact with body fluids in order to transmit. Yes, it's terrible that we now have a disease that causes infant deformity and which can spread by sexual contact. But, while this is a serious issue, it really isn't cause for alarm at this point.

The bigger concern: how long does a person remain a carrier of the virus? Is it something you'll always have with you, like HSV-1 (which causes cold sores), or is it like influenza, just a passing thing? If the former, then definitely something like the upcoming Olympic games could be a major concern, because it will create lots of lifelong carriers. On the other hand, if it's just a temporary thing, then it will peter out in the same way a regular flu outbreak does, just faster (because only the very sexually active and currently infectious can spread it). Nothing I've seen suggests that the virus remains in the body after the initial infection is fought off. So, like I said: a serious issue, in the sense that it should be addressed and finding a treatment/vaccine (especially for women of child-bearing age and interest) would be a Good Thing. But not a pants-wetting scenario, not a human-race-ending problem.

Honestly, ebola scares me a hell of a lot more than this, because flipping from "may cause birth defects, 60%-80% of non-fetal cases have no symptoms" to "hideously lethal" seems like a much bigger jump than "only spreads by direct contact with body fluids" to "spreads by aerosol droplets from coughing/sneezing."

Yes, ebola sucks. Zika also sucks, but in a different way. I explained why I think it's pretty bad earlier, and I'd like you to read it and consider that thought, along with the fact that there's women out there who are on a biological clock in regards to kids. Telling them to stop trying for two years may be the difference between having their own child and being incapable of having one. . .along with a giant plethora of other issues that come with a strong suggestion from a regulatory body regarding reproduction.

[Nobody]

Are you aware of any virus that changed its mode of transmission in a very short period of time? (Less than 10,000 years)

Not that it doesn't happen, just that it usually takes a very long time.

That's like expecting the common flu to change into something lethal

As long as you're not a pregnant woman, there's absolutely no reason to panic about Zika.

The reason governments are (rightfully) deadly scaried about Zika is because a surge in number of microcephalic peaople will cost a lot of money to the State, much more so than a dead person. Again, pregnant women should definitely be careful and fear Zika, for everyone else, there's no reason for an ebola-like panic.

Yeah, it's has to be contained as soon as possible, and I hope it doesn't end up as Dengue here in Brazil, which returns strongly every couple of years.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Nobody

[blah the Prussian]

thatdoesn't matter. it's still dangerous, and it's still spreading quickly. it needs to be contained as much as possible, as far as possible.

I agree. I was merely commenting on the tendencies of the media, not on the threat of the virus.

[Magical CC]

Oh, Ebola was a big deal, and so is this. Its just that the media will absolutely blow it out of proportion and make it out to be the end of humanity like they did with Ebola.

It's because the high alertness of people about Ebola that Ebola didnt become what it may be. You are thinking like Hitler, "dont worry, it will be fine".

Edited February 5, 2016 by Magical CC

[Phoenix Wright]

I agree. I was merely commenting on the tendencies of the media, not on the threat of the virus.

yeah, sorry about that. i was on mobile and was skimming posts!

[blah the Prussian]

It's because the high alertness of people about Ebola that Ebola didnt become what it may be. You are thinking like Hitler, "dont worry, it will be fine".

Fully closing borders and absolutely insane quarantines was never needed, nor was cutting off all travel to and from Africa.

yeah, sorry about that. i was on mobile and was skimming posts!

You are forgiven.

[amiabletemplar]

Are you aware of any virus that changed its mode of transmission in a very short period of time? (Less than 10,000 years)

Not that it doesn't happen, just that it usually takes a very long time.

Nope, I've done exactly zero research on the subject. But doing something as simple as acquiring a cough-related effect (probably by horizontal gene transfer from another virus, like influenza) seems a lot more reasonable than going from almost always asymptomatic to viciously lethal in a short time span. I have very little informational basis for making the claim. But I suspect that nobody in this conversation is going to have anywhere near the education to make informed statements about it.

Yes, ebola sucks. Zika also sucks, but in a different way. I explained why I think it's pretty bad earlier, and I'd like you to read it and consider that thought, along with the fact that there's women out there who are on a biological clock in regards to kids. Telling them to stop trying for two years may be the difference between having their own child and being incapable of having one. . .along with a giant plethora of other issues that come with a strong suggestion from a regulatory body regarding reproduction.

I did read it. And I already responded to it: it is a truly terrible thing that we have discovered a virus, which can be sexually transmitted*, and which can lead to birth defects. Not being female myself, it's difficult for me to fully appreciate the issues involved for them. I can't help being a little skeptical of the "biological clock" argument. I certainly understand that menopause is a thing, and that the older a woman is (after maturity), the higher the risk of complications both during pregnancy and after birth. But my mother had no problem giving birth to either me or my sister--and she was in her 30s (33 for me, 36 for my sister). Yes, there will be a segment of, say, 38-40 year old women who have delayed having children (intentionally or not), and I can understand their frustration. I just don't see that frustration as reason for me, or people in general outside the affected areas, to be alarmed or distressed. It is unlikely to become a globe-spanning threat; it causes zero symptoms for most affected people; it appears to be a thing that passes after a mere couple of weeks. The vast majority of people, even if infected, will suffer exactly zero negative consequences. And as I said, we absolutely should be looking for an actual answer to this thing--such as a vaccine, or at least some kind of prophylactic steps that can be taken.

But...I'm really not sure what you're talking about, with the whole reproductive rights thing. The CDC is hardly passing laws. They're doing their job: providing medical advice. Pregnant women are practically the only people who experience any significant negative consequences of zika infection--consequences that will linger, not for their lifetime, but for someone else's lifetime. Until more information is available, "avoid doing the thing that causes problems" seems like sound medical advice. Yes, it's advice that is unfortunately gender-based...because pregnancy is unfortunately gender-based. What would you have them do instead, as their very first response? Say nothing, and thus theoretically be liable for concealing important medical information from the public? Merely reporting it at all is going to make some women reconsider.

Furthermore, in digging deeper, I actually haven't found a single reference to the CDC suggesting that women completely avoid having children for two years. Nothing of the sort, in fact. It has been, in absolutely every case, "if you live in or travel to one of the affected areas, consult your healthcare provider" or some variation thereof. Nothing at all about advocating or advising a blanket ban. Perhaps, instead of immediately leaping to questions of gender politics and/or aspersions, it would be better to actually look at what the CDC has said or done? The strongest pieces of advice I've seen have been "Wear body-covering clothing or use approved insect repellant" and "If you're pregnant, consider postponing travel to these countries."

*Though we don't know the rate of transmission. Thus far, two cases have been reported--not nearly enough data to draw any conclusions except that it can happen.

Edit:

In fact, it sounds like the OP got confused. El Salvador (not Brazil) has issued a formal advisory not to get pregnant for two years. But this was not at the prompting of the CDC. Experts around the world have, in fact, been shocked by it. So yeah. When you hear an extreme and eyebrow-raising claim, check it out. Google is your friend.

Edited February 5, 2016 by amiabletemplar