|
05 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM (#3770767) Subject: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Donuel The adverse birth defect aspect of Zika infection is not as prevalent as initial reports imply. For example a pregnant woman who gets Zika during pregnancy is not destined to have a baby with micro encephalitis. It is more likely than not she will have a normal child. Many different syndromes are seen as a cause for small heads. While this virus is one of those possible causes of small heads, even so one in ten of these affected children will have perfectly normal cognition. As for Zika being a STD it is one of many diseases that mosquitos spread that also have STD susceptibility. While new information can change the outlook for Zika infections the current status of its effect should not freak out the world. I do not share this unbiased information to protect the summer Olympics any other conspiracy theory or any other knee jerk response to the news. Guillam Barre' syndrome is so rare as a possibility from Zika as to be irrelevant. It is true this mass bloom of Zika world wide is alarming it is not anywhere near as dangerous as the flu. |
|
05 Feb 16 - 12:11 PM (#3770781) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Jack Campin A 20-fold increase in the incidence of microcephaly is not something to go Pollyanna about. |
|
05 Feb 16 - 12:28 PM (#3770786) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Greg F. I do not share this unbiased information Sources? |
|
05 Feb 16 - 12:50 PM (#3770794) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Donuel NIH |
|
05 Feb 16 - 01:13 PM (#3770804) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Donuel 2,400 out of a population of 200 million is still not a devastating number. certainly more needs to be known. 20 fold increase is a kind of statistic Fox News latches onto. Yesterday they showed how Federal employees are today making twice as much as private sector workers in 1990. Disingenuous uses of statistics registers as truthiness. |
|
05 Feb 16 - 01:20 PM (#3770807) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Jack Campin 20 fold increase is a kind of statistic Fox News latches onto. If they did they would be right. I didn't see that figure quoted anywhere in the media, I calculated it. |
|
05 Feb 16 - 10:54 PM (#3770893) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Padre From the National Institutes of Health's "Medline" Zika is a virus that is spread by mosquitoes. A pregnant mother can also pass it to her baby during pregnancy or around the time of birth. There have been outbreaks of Zika virus in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, parts of the Caribbean, and Central and South America. Most people who get the virus do not get sick. One in five people do get symptoms, which can include a fever, rash, joint pain, and conjunctivitis (pinkeye). Symptoms are usually mild, and start 2 to 7 days after being bitten by an infected mosquito. A blood test can tell whether you have the infection. There are no vaccines or medicines to treat it. Drinking lots of fluids, resting, and taking acetaminophen might help. There have been reports of microcephaly (a serious birth defect of the brain) and other problems in babies whose mothers were infected while pregnant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that pregnant women do not travel to areas where there is a Zika virus outbreak. If you do decide to travel, first talk to your doctor. You should also be careful to prevent mosquito bites. |
|
06 Feb 16 - 01:12 AM (#3770897) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Joe Offer The National Institutes of Health (USA) has a Zika page with more information than anyone would ever want to read. One statistic I didn't see - what percentage of pregnant women who've had the Zika virus, end up having microcephalic babies? The statistic may be there, but I didn't find it. -Joe- |
|
06 Feb 16 - 03:36 AM (#3770903) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Jack Campin The percentage is probably quite low, but I haven't seen figures that would make a calculation possible. |
|
06 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM (#3770998) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: GUEST,Musket The risk and threat is enough for The WHO to work with national healthcare authorities around the world to try to eradicate it. Complacency is not a recommended course of action, neither is irresponsible misinterpretation of data. If you are versed in epidemiology, please contribute. Otherwise, I strongly suggest reading conclusions rather than making them. |
|
06 Feb 16 - 02:06 PM (#3770999) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: GUEST Found this a bit rich coming as it did from Musket: " If you are versed in epidemiology, please contribute. Otherwise, I strongly suggest reading conclusions rather than making them." Mind you if it has anything to do with a particular period in history that he knows next to nothing about and openly admits it and "Historians" who do he believes the exact opposite. |
|
06 Feb 16 - 07:34 PM (#3771055) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Bee-dubya-ell I don't know how serious an issue this virus truly is, but I'm certain that Republican candidates in the upcoming US election will promise to keep us safe from it while accusing Democrats of being totally inept in their handling of the "crisis". |
|
06 Feb 16 - 07:56 PM (#3771062) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Greg F. And the Boobocracy will believe them. |
|
07 Feb 16 - 02:27 AM (#3771088) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Joe Offer ...and I would suspect that Musket knows a good amount about epidemiology. I respect what he has to say on the subject. |
|
07 Feb 16 - 02:37 AM (#3771089) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: GUEST,Musket Historians interpret and differ in their conclusions, as do everybody else. More than one flavour of Musket has pointed this out. Also, public health professionals differ in interpretations of this state of affairs. It needs no consensus to determine that there is a risk. I am a bit rich me old love. Although teaching public health to medical students doesn't pay as well as my earlier work. Not sure my finances are relevant? Intentional naivity, a trait of Mudcat methinks? Note by the way I said "conclusions" not "conclusion." in the post above. Detail to catch the foolish eh? |
|
07 Feb 16 - 06:46 AM (#3771115) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Mr Red The actual mechanism that causes microcephaly is irrelevant. The statistics show a correlation not a causality. Like crossing the road, it is a potential source of danger, however rare, we have to take precautions. The consequences of getting it wrong far, far, far outweigh the effort of doing simple things. And quite complex things like laws and pedestrian crossings. And education! And salt roads! And build speed bumps. And .... add your precaution. Life ain't binary. Oxitech have a solution, and are being asked to roll it out after a trial near Sao Paulo. Proven it be effective to the point of 99% against Dengue, for which the particular mosquito is a well understood vector, along with Zika and chikungunya. |
|
08 Feb 16 - 02:03 AM (#3771330) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: GUEST,mg someone is working with fish that eat the larvae and i think are having success.. |
|
08 Feb 16 - 05:28 AM (#3771358) Subject: RE: BS: Zika Virus vs. the Truth From: Joe Offer We've had skeeter larvae eating fish distributed for free here in California for decades. They help, but the skeeters ain't extinct yet. |