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

[Naughx]

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

Border control for that sort of dangerous viral infections is still required and reasonable. (Many african countries did lack and still lack proper basic equipment)

It is less of a threat for countries that have good healthcare infrastructures.

Even if it is true that Influenza somewhat kills more people each years than Ebola ever did.

---

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.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

No evidence that viral diseases change their mode of transmission

Moreover, scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Naughx

[eclipse]

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."

So, you're going to have to take the words of someone who's a woman and has seen what the want of children (or lack theroef) can do to a family. . .multiple families.

Planned pregnancies take some foresight - someone in my position, for example, would need to seriously start looking for a boyfriend (or in my case, husband, because I'm gonna need all the financial help possible to raise a kid). Actually trying for a kid is stressful, and adding an uncontrollable time factor isn't going to make things better. So while it's not a big deal to you, I can understand why it's a big deal to a lot of other people, and I will respect that.

Here's the advisory for pregnant women. The CDC advises women who travel to a country with a Zika outbreak to wait about a week before getting pregnant. So what about those who are in a place where Zika is active? Do both sides wait a week between mosquito bites? Where I am, it's not always easy to do that, especially if you're in one of the rainier areas.

I took a look at the outbreak map, and I'm not liking my odds. Hawaii may not have a lot of people that commute to South America on a regular basis, but I know there's a nontrivial section of the population from Samoa/America Samoa/Tonga (never mind the people who go there for business). I feel like it's a matter of time, instead of a matter of "if".

[Skynstein]

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.

Depends on where you live. :)

Rousseff administration has been a fucking disaster. Still, this crisis is the culmination of decades of not treating the Aedes mosquito as a legitimate threat. We sorta did, but always failed in effectively controlling it.

[amiabletemplar]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

(Removed text, emphasis in original post:

No evidence that viral diseases change their mode of transmission

Moreover, scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission.)

Good to know. There is, however, the flipside: how often do largely-harmless viruses become grievously lethal? We have flu seasons every year, for example, but a pandemic of disastrous proportions (rather than the relatively tame, but still terrible, 2009 pandemic) hasn't occurred in nearly a century, despite dramatically higher human populations. Specifically, the last time we had a "Category 5 Pandemic," using the relatively-new grading scale patterned after the hurricane category scale, was the 1918 "Spanish" flu. Every flu since then has been either Category 2 (the "Hong Kong" and "Asian" flu outbreaks) or on the upper end of Category 1 (the recent 2009 "Swine" flu). Even the 1918 flu only had a case-fatality ratio of, at the very highest, 20%--making it less lethal than even the best-case estimates for ebola (25%).

So, sure, changes in method of transmission are unheard-of. That's good! But dramatic changes in lethality appear to also be unheard-of. Given the distinct mildness of the zika infection, e.g. around two-thirds to four-fifths of all infected people showing no symptoms whatsoever, I stand by my assertion that, barring new developments, this is not something to be overly concerned about. It's a thing to keep in mind, and (as I've said more than once) definitely something we should be doing research on so we can treat/forestall it, but distinctly less alarming than most viral outbreak problems.

So, you're going to have to take the words of someone who's a woman and has seen what the want of children (or lack theroef) can do to a family. . .multiple families.

Planned pregnancies take some foresight - someone in my position, for example, would need to seriously start looking for a boyfriend (or in my case, husband, because I'm gonna need all the financial help possible to raise a kid). Actually trying for a kid is stressful, and adding an uncontrollable time factor isn't going to make things better. So while it's not a big deal to you, I can understand why it's a big deal to a lot of other people, and I will respect that.

Here's the advisory for pregnant women. The CDC advises women who travel to a country with a Zika outbreak to wait about a week before getting pregnant. So what about those who are in a place where Zika is active? Do both sides wait a week between mosquito bites? Where I am, it's not always easy to do that, especially if you're in one of the rainier areas.

I took a look at the outbreak map, and I'm not liking my odds. Hawaii may not have a lot of people that commute to South America on a regular basis, but I know there's a nontrivial section of the population from Samoa/America Samoa/Tonga (never mind the people who go there for business). I feel like it's a matter of time, instead of a matter of "if".

Er, no, that's...not what it recommends? That is, I cannot see even a single mention of the CDC recommending that women postpone pregnancy. It's all about postponing travel. To whit:

"Until more is known, CDC recommends special precautions for pregnant women and women trying to become pregnant:

• Pregnant women in any trimester should consider postponing travel to the areas where Zika virus transmission is ongoing. Pregnant women who do travel to one of these areas should talk to their doctor or other healthcare provider first and strictly follow steps to avoid mosquito bites during the trip.

• Women trying to become pregnant or who are thinking about becoming pregnant should consult with their healthcare provider before traveling to these areas and strictly follow steps to prevent mosquito bites during the trip."

The closest it gets to actually recommending a delay in pregnancy, again without actually saying so, is:

"We do not know the risk to the infant if a woman is infected with Zika virus while she is pregnant. Zika virus usually remains in the blood of an infected person for only a few days to a week. The virus will not cause infections in an infant that is conceived after the virus is cleared from the blood. There is currently no evidence that Zika virus infection poses a risk of birth defects in future pregnancies. A women contemplating pregnancy, who has recently recovered from Zika virus infection, should consult her healthcare provider after recovering."

As for the "should both sides wait," you can't be meaningfully re-infected with zika much like how once you've had chicken pox, you (usually) are immune for life. It's not like influenza, which continually mutates and thus prevents lasting immunity. Talking to your doctor, if you think you've been bitten again, would probably be the best answer. Using insect repellent appears to be an effective countermeasure as well, to prevent new bites if there is a concern.

In other words, as I've said several times, their core recommendation in every case is: "Talk to your doctor if you think you might have contracted zika." And waiting a week after you think you've had the flu seems like hardly a terriblehorrible burden. In fact, I'm getting a distinct feeling of moved goalposts here: the first argument was that it was inappropriate for the CDC to be making recommendations to governments about extreme, long-term postponement of pregnancy. Now the argument is, or seems to be, "it's not fair to tell women to talk to their doctors, and to note that it takes at most a week for the virus to be cleared from their bodies." Any woman seriously considering pregnancy should be paying close attention to her own health, and ideally should be keeping in relatively close contact with her healthcare provider(s) to forestall problems and complications later down the line. Yes, this is a clear frustration, and yes, it's a problem that we SHOULD do something about...as I've said twice now. But I cannot see any justification for painting this as an onerous burden. There's a disease, which is thought to cause problems for fetal development, and the CDC is giving sound, common sense medical advice in response. I don't see it as any more onerous or unfair than telling a woman, say, to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke (whether tobacco or...other materials) while pregnant--it will mean inconvenience and potentially significant changes to her routines and such, but stuff like that is a concern when you're growing a new person inside you!

I also noticed that you excised the very important edit to my original post, where I noted that the "wait 2 years" thing was exclusively from the government of El Salvador and had exactly nothing to do with the CDC. Perhaps that was simply because you had no comment on it, I don't know. But it would have been nice to at least recognize that your original argument, about the two-year no-pregnancy thing, had nothing whatsoever to do with the CDC, and thus any aspersions cast on their ethical character were specious at best.

Edited February 6, 2016 by amiabletemplar

[eclipse]

First, the El Salvador thing wasn't relevant to my point. Second, expect your quotes to be cut (or outright omitted), because you write a lot, and it makes my reply to you look unnecessarily lengthy. A long reply is great on a computer screen, but it's a lot less pleasant for people on mobile.

Here's what you missed, from the CDC page:

Is it safe to get pregnant after traveling to a country with Zika virus?

If infected, Zika virus usually remains in the blood of an infected person for about a week. The virus will not cause infections in a baby that is conceived after the virus is cleared from the blood.

So, the wait period is a week. We know that Zika is transmitted by mosquito bites. Thus, in order to ensure that either potential parent isn't infected, the best course of action is to wait about a week after a mosquito bite.

[Rapier]

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

The media exaggerates so that others take it seriously, and I see no reason for it to not be treated that way (I'm not saying that you said this). Also, I don't know any case about the zika virus being treated as badly as you describle or being blown out of proportion, I really don't get your annoyance over this. Even in Brazil, our advertisements about it are more serious and direct than sensationalistic and dramatic.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rapier

[Leif]

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/

Yeah, this is worrisome. Mosquitoes are the devil, period. I live in a dry, Mediterranean climate, so thankfully I don't run into mosquitoes all that often.

Zika is horrible for a pregnant woman due to the sad birth defects it causes.

I think the other posters touched on the more important points, but we have to be wary of this disease because the method of transmission can reach more people.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Leif

[blah the Prussian]

The media exaggerates so that others take it seriously, and I see no reason for it to not be treated that way (I'm not saying that you said this). Also, I don't know any case about the zika virus being treated as badly as you describle or being blown out of proportion, I really don't get your annoyance over this. Even in Brazil, our advertisements about it are more serious and direct than sensationalistic and dramatic.

It was more of a prediction than anything, although I may yet have been proven wrong. Regarding Mosquitos, apparently there's actually a way this guy developed to kill all mosquitos, by developing a mosquito with a kill gene in it and having it fuck all the other mosquitos. Then, the kill gene is activated and the next generation of mosquitos who all have the gene, all die.

[amiabletemplar]

It was more of a prediction than anything, although I may yet have been proven wrong. Regarding Mosquitos, apparently there's actually a way this guy developed to kill all mosquitos, by developing a mosquito with a kill gene in it and having it fuck all the other mosquitos. Then, the kill gene is activated and the next generation of mosquitos who all have the gene, all die.

Yeah, I heard about that. An interesting application of genetic engineering--and, at least in *theory,* a safe one, because it's inherently self-terminating. Given that the mosquito responsible for this is an invader anyway, there seem to be relatively few arguments against employing such stuff, unless someone is just overweeningly anti-GMO (which has always seemed silly to me). Being concerned about the proliferation of lab genes into the environment? Valid concern. Getting freaked out by inherently self-sterilizing changes? Kinda silly.