Zika virus has 'explosive pandemic potential'

c_man wrote: »

I think you're missing the point entirely. My point is the media and public reaction to this here in Ireland will be way over the top. This will follow the exact same path as SARS outbreak in 2002 and Ebola more recently.

Of course something needs to be done in the places where it's happening. Please don't misrepresent what I was saying. there may be millions being spent on the others, but the point is that your average Joe will spend more time worrying about this (let's be honest in terms of Ireland) non-existent threat rather than getting off his own arse and doing some exercise/quitting smoking or actually facing of the myriad of life choices which actually will affect his life span.

I understand your point but i just don't see the relevance and i don't mean that is a sarcastic/bitchy way. Some people will always worry about things that won't affect them and if it isn't this it will be something else. Newspapers will always latch onto something and blow it out of proportion to sell papers. But at the same time the more attention this gets the better as it puts more pressure on the WOW to act faster than it did with Ebola. Also i think the average Joe is smarter than you're giving them credit for.

I just hate the attitude that seems to be more and more common these days of ignoring something because it isn't happening in our country or in Europe

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So we just cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, not travel there and we will be "fine"? The virus is spreading, don't ask me how, but it seems to be spreading to more common species of mosquito. That means a pregnant Irish woman travels to places like Africa, Asia or North America and could conceivably pick up the virus, if it spreads to local species of mosquito.

That's not what I said, but thanks for the misrepresentation.

(Disclosure: I have family in Brazil. Most of my family have had dengue, of which all survived. For adults, Zika is milder than dengue.)

The opening post asked: "Will this turn into another Ebola disaster but without the death toll?" I simply answered that question. The answer is: no, it won't. It's as simple as that.

Yes, it's devastating to pregnant women in the areas affected, but anyone seriously comparing it to ebola needs to get their head checked.

Howard the Duck wrote: »

Although not as deadly as Ebola this could have a much worse affect . 11000 deaths from Ebola. There could be up to 4 million cases of Zika, how many children will be born severely disabled from that 4 million? A lot i would expect

And yet Zika is a lot easier to prevent than ebola. If you ask my family how they got dengue, they all have the same story: they didn't bother with precautions. Stagnant water, lack of mosquito nets.

Did ebola only affect foetuses? Nope. It affected everyone, and it killed most of them. Zika is very mild in adults, so prevention should focus on pregnant women and probably also children and the elderly, but that makes it easier to deal with than what ebola was at the height of the epidemic.

Again, a tragedy for pregnant women and their children, but not a new "ebola disaster", which is the question posed in the opening post.

eeguy wrote: »

Hundreds of column inches, hype, speculation and panic dedicated to a virus that will kill far less than the flu.

Most of them pre-written with the appropriate blanks for country of origin, expected/massively overstated mortality rates, a "should", "could" or "may" in every second sentence just to give writter/media outlet enough wiggle room to deny they ever said such a thing.

Howard the Duck wrote: »

You think it's easier to control the movement of mosquitoes then it is to control the movement of people?
Let's take dengue fever as an example which is also spread by the same mosquitoes last year 500,000 people were hospitalized because of this.
Now everyone already knows that it is spread by mosquitoes so that should make it easy to control the spread of according to your logic. But clearly it spreads and that will more than likely be the case with Zika. What really is needed here is a vaccine and a cheap testing kit.
In my opinion it is much easier to control a disease spread by humans than it is to control one spread by mosquitoes. I hope what you believe is correct and what I believe is wrong that would make me very happy.

Well, I'm only basing my opinion on the experiences of my family, extended family, and friends in Brazil. They're well aware that they got sick because they didn't take precautions against dengue (They're nonchalant about it because it's that common, and in their area people got quick medical attention for it. They talk about it as you and I would talk about getting a cold). Those who did, didn't get sick. Simple as that.

Of course it's bad that it will spread, but people can individually protect themselves against it. It will spread. Measures against its spread must be taken, but it's still likely that it will spread. You can still protect yourself, and it's not that difficult to take preventative measures on an individual (or even family) basis. For an Irish person that would involve refraining from travelling to affected areas. For people living in an affected area, getting rid of stagnant water, using mosquito nets, wearing long sleeves, using insect repellent and taking extra B vitamins will keep mosquitos away from their skin.

But again, for the third time, I was only arguing that it's not comparable to ebola. Again, the original post asked if it was a new ebola disaster, and my answer is no.

anothernight wrote: »

But again, for the third time, I was only arguing that it's not comparable to ebola. Again, the original post asked if it was a new ebola disaster, and my answer is no.

I take your point and i don't see much point in comparing the two myself it really doesn't make a difference at the end of the day. But in my opinion many more people will be affected by this and i think it's the fact that the worst affected will be new born children that i feel so strongly about it. Also i wasn't having a go at you directly, it was more the general comments in here that were writing this off in a jokey way as nothing major but i do suppose that is what AH is normally like

Candie wrote: »

This is all true. But it's not that simple because parasite borne illnesses are almost always a coproduction with poverty. What needs to happen is that the poorest populations most vulnerable to the initial infection - the ones with no running water, no sewage, no repellent, no resourses for vitamins etc - are targeted asap. Mozzie nets aren't much good for Zika since these mozzies bite like mad during the day.

The more infected persons there are, the more infected mozzies there are and the place to act initially is the overcrowded slums with no sanitary provision or running water, and populations near stagnant and slow moving bodies of water.

A lot of what we see as sensible precaution are the preserve of the relatively wealthy.

I only have experience with two parts of Brazil: one with a wetter climate but with a relatively financially stable population (poor by our standards, but not by theirs) and another very, very poor, which disproportionally depends on state handouts, but has a much drier climate. In both of those areas people do have the resources to fight mosquito-borne illnesses, because a lot of these resources are freely available from healthcare centres. In Brazil at least it's not that difficult to fight some of the infections they get. It's like the case with HIV: they get free condoms and free HIV medication, and yet the disease continues to spread. As with many things, education is sorely needed.

In other places where people really have nothing to prevent disease with (whether Zika or any others), I definitely agree with you.

Same old bull**** year in year out.