The alarming threat of Zika virus
bbc.com
bbc.com
In 2015, Zika virus RNA was detected in the amniotic fluid of two fetuses, indicating that it crossed the placenta and could cause fetal infection. On 20 January 2016, scientists from the state of Paraná, Brazil, detected genetic material of Zika virus in the placenta of a woman, who had undergone an abortion due to the fetus' microcephaly, which confirmed that the virus is able to pass the placenta."
In a terrible use of words, the minister of public health "wished" that every girl got the Zika virus before beginning her... hum... "mature period", so that she would be protect before having any possibility of getting pregnant.
http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/rapid-ris...
Edit: the linked BBC article also states that it was first reported in Brazil in May 2015 (at least in recent years).
air > contact > sharing food/toilet facilities > sexual > blood
Any disease, say the flue, that can be transmitted by "sharing air" can be transmitted by contact, by sharing food, and sexually and blood transfusion (with very few exceptions)
They're subsets of one another. Sexually transmitted diseases are mostly that because they can't be transmitted any other way (other than sharing blood).
In fact a number of "sexually transmitted" diseases can't be transmitted sexually at all. But apparently it's somewhat common for humans' sexual organs to develop scratches during sex, resulting in blood mixing. So a number of sexually transmitted diseases cannot in fact be transmitted without exchange of blood. And euhm ... scratches are more common with anal or oral sex (sharp teeth near the relevant parts, I guarantee you there's 5 tiny bleeding scratches in your mouth right now, especially right after eating and/or stretching muscles and tissues beyond their normal limits ... leads to bleeding)
(this is not just true in humans, cats for instance are in fact much worse (due to the hook involved ... women might want to skip looking up what that means), when cats breed, you're pretty much guaranteed that you can find blood on the relevant parts. In fact, that is considered one of the signs that it's happened. Because scientists are not free to experiment on humans but are (more) free to experiment on cats we actually know more about disease transmission in pets and horses than we do about it in humans)
The worst part is that because of the terrible state of the economy here, there's no insect repellent in the stores and no proper Zika test kits in the hospitals. The sanitary situation here is getting worse everyday (constant shortage of food and medicine).
Add to that the constant politization of everything, the govt hasn't even issued any infection figures or warnings.
I had to ask a friend coming from the US to bring some DEET repellent. But not everyone has the same opportunity.
(Joking aside, Venezuela has a quasi-command economy with foreign exchange controls; this results in a shortage of imported goods and it may be prohibitively expensive to do a personal import)
Also, since so many venezuelans are leaving the country, lots of people living in Panama and the US are sending stuff to their friends and family in the country using these companies. The shipping and taxes are expensive sometimes but it's an alternative at least.
I've got some (very) small savings in dollars from some grunt jobs I do every now and then online and I can buy some stuff like prenatal vitamins, repellent, etc.
Almost all of my closest friends have already left. I think about leaving every day. I am teaching myself programming and studying for CCNA , thinking that maybe I can get a job somewhere relatively quickly , even though I'm in my mid-thirties and have limited experience in those areas.
The answer: the same thing that keeps everyone outside the first-world in their place... the inability to get a visa to greener pastures.
What gives you the impression that people contributing to JS frameworks have the potential to meaningfully contribute to "hard problems" in molecular biology ?
On the macro level, the new generations of smart talented folks are choosing CS over other career choices.
Umm... he is arguing that CS is exactly what people should be focusing because CS (ML/data processing, etc.) applied to existing fields and data could lead to new insights - so more smart people going to CS is a good thing (at least according to Yegge).
My point is that CS has practically nothing to do with writing JS frameworks and frankly I doubt that most people doing JS development are the kind of people that could make significant contributions to CS or mentioned sciences - maybe a fraction of the top % - but JS is a low barrier to entry, easy to get simple things done, sufficient to solve real world problems like automating CRUD TPS reports - because someone needs to do that as well. I've had the misfortune of working with that platform - JS is by far the lowest quality ecosystem I've seen* (I never really got into PHP so I can't compare).
IMO Yegge makes a stronger point suggesting that data science people are being driven to "catbook" projects instead of "important stuff" - but those people are not your everyday JS developers.
For example if we used the infertile male mosquito method, we'd need to bread billions of them and release them very carefully for maximum effect. That's do-able but a massive undertaking.
Plus we could spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on this (perhaps more) and have them spring back up a few years later just from a single missed colony (keep in mind they can breed in almost ALL still water, from a puddle, to a lake, to a water holding tank).
In the Americas you'd have to wipe them out in massive areas of jungle, every island, every country (even ones with bad relations), it is just mind boggling once you start thinking about it.
It is totally possible but would be the single largest human undertaking in our history.
PS - Indefinite population control might be more viable than literal extinction. Then you just release infertile males every season in the hopes of dropping their numbers in half or better.
Geneticists have discovered ways to drive terminal genes into entire populations. A mosquito species could be wiped out in no time with a gene drive.
Thanks alpeb!
The article goes on to quote biologists who think the consequences could be severe for some species (e.g., some birds).
Given their destructiveness, we may want to eradicate mosquitos, but let's not pretend that such an undertaking would not only be costly, but carry a virtually unknowable level of risk.
First, ignorant people don't cooperate, and seemly trying to make them non-ignorant (ie: teach them), don't work, some people just refuse to learn even when you shove information in their head.
Then any slight mishap that break the systematic killing of mosquitos, allow them to come back in full force, for example in São Paulo a contract problem led the government mosquito killers to be carless for some months, meaning they could not get fast around to kill nests, in this year the mosquito population exploded, undoing several years of work.
They have nests? I was born in northern canada, mosquito capital of the planet, and that's news to me.
If this barrier were removed without a suitable alternative means of regulation, the consequences could be catastrophic.
I agree with you that we should be smart about how we alter evolution.
Humans depend on the biosphere for survival.
I agree that protecting babies from brain damage is very important, but certainly not at any cost.
An undertaking so MASSIVE to "kill all the trees" is absolutely hyperbolic nonsense. The parent never suggested that. At worst, if your claims above are true, more logging may occur. This is a far, far, far, far cry from killing all the trees (even when limiting the context to the rainforest).
When you're arguing with someone don't derive meaning from someone's rebuttal that doesn't exist in order to help your position; it makes it appear that you only want to deal with extremes without evidence which paints your views in a nonrealistic way.
The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Seems like you don't have a problem with 'extremes' of meaning that don't exist when they support your position.
While I thought the parent's comment was in snark / sarcastic it was still contextual and not as extreme (it was regarding the issue you brought up).
As for me? What did I say that was hyperbolic?
> The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy.
Yes what krschultz wrote was a false dichotomy. Sarcasm tends to be just that. Though you, on the other hand, took his / her comments to an extreme that didn't make sense because of exactly what I said: you creative a narrative that didn't exist out of someone else's comment only to be hyperbolic to try and bolster your position.
"Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies" - krschultz
"If you kill all the trees[...]" - zepto (in reply to krschultz)
Do you understand now? Surely you can see the ridiculousness of your response to krschultz, regardless of his / her own snark / saracasm, right?
If it's sarcasm, then it doesn't stand as an argument and my original point goes unrefuted. You can't have it both ways.
This is digressing into utter nonsense. Go back to reddit if you want to troll.
You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'.
I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment.
If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
[0] http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
Around the 88% of logging in Indonesia and 80% of logging in Brazil and Bolivia could be illegal in fact.
You're asserting that mosquitos, possibly carrying disease, hold back logging operations significantly to the point where if the mosquitos didn't exist there would be logging that would create a "catastrophic" event.
I'm not convinced we even have enough resources at or near the ready to cause a "catastrophic" event in relation to logging even if we wanted to. Rain forests are extremely dangerous as it is, surely there are far, far better places to log?
Asking a barrage of innuendo laden questions to create doubt is not an argument.
It is not my responsibility to track down and disprove all claims made on the internet. When you make a claim you must back it up otherwise why make the claim at all?
Why did you make these claims without backing them up?
Regardless the rainforest being dangerous is actually a really common theme (I know I learned about it in primary school).
Tips for tourists: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/dangers-amazon-rainforest-116...
Surviving the Jungle: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/jungl...
Poisonous plants of the jungle: http://www.ehow.com/list_6698309_poisonous-plants-amazon.htm...
I mean if this is how petty you want to go I can pull up thousands of links; the rainforest can be a pretty scary place and there are countless things in it that can kill you.
Regardless dangerous isn't tied to a specific set of dangers. That's simply not what the word means. I gave a set of links, mentioned I could send you many, many more, and you cherry-pick a topic I didn't post...for what purpose?
I'll admit I'm not used to being trolled on HN but this is just ridiculous. If you want to just post random garbage without providing a way of backing up claims (extreme claims nonetheless) then go to reddit.
It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
> It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
You made a statement that was extreme and never supplied a source. At this point you're just trying to troll and branch the argument down paths that are unrelated. Just go back to reddit.
If you want to have a real, intellectual discussion about topics you yourself brought up then you need to provide source. Trying to find irrelevant faults just make you look like a troll.
Have fun arguing with yourself.
But I don't think we actually have the ability, do we? We have some promising approaches, though it's unclear to me how good any of those approaches are at getting down to zero mosquitoes. I suppose we'd need better detection as well so that we could incrementally eradicate the mosquitoes and then quickly address any resurgences.
Even the moral dimension seems... lacking: I doubt you'll will ever soulfully stare deep into the eyes of a mosquito and confess your species-guilt for having destroyed them, let alone explain why your cruel warping of their species was deemed the better choice.
I don't have any evidence, but I don't think that will work: life will find a way. But a modification that will let mosquitoes survive, but not bother humans (or animals), might be a good compromise.
Malaria was once endemic to the US, and while we didn't at the time have the capability to totally eradicate mosquitoes, that didn't stop the CDC from wiping it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Malaria_Eradication_P...
It'd be wonderful to see mosquitoes utterly eliminated. They're the source of massive human suffering worldwide.
I think that to expect just the opposite, a rearrange of all the food chain and lots of collateral effects, would be more realistic. A world suddenly without many species of fishes, birds, amphibians, spiders or predatory flies do not looks like a stable system.
This study from Johns Hopkins University, for example details how the prevalence mosquito-borne fevers does not follow income/class: www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/burden-of-dengue-chikungunya-in-india-far-worse-than-understood.html
To quote, " Researchers estimated that on average, 23 percent of those who have not yet been infected become infected by dengue every year, corresponding to roughly 228,000 infections per year in Chennai alone. “This rate of infection is extremely high, almost three times higher than in areas of Brazil and Thailand where transmission was thought to be high,” says Rodríguez-Barraquer. They also found that the rate of infection in Chennai was similar in poor communities as in more affluent neighborhoods. The research is believed to be the first to systematically measure dengue and chikungunya infection rates in India. “If you don’t understand the extent of the problem, you can’t address it,” she says. "
The mother had recently traveled to Brazil and thankfully neither her nor the baby are infectious -- but, living in the tropics, it seems to be only a matter of time until we see mosquitoes carrying Zika here.
[1] http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31007233/hawaii-health-of...
I can just imagine the social cost of that -- how many persons in family will have to dedicate to care, work just to supply money for the necessary medical treatments, and/or losing professional opportunities because of this. I estimate the impact in 10:1.
The story is just not true. DDT was banned not because of blind chemical-phobia, but because the molecule is way too stable. It stays in the food chain and environment for decades. Eventually, it builds up in certain predators and wipes them out.
There are plenty of insecticides which are perfectly usable, but without DDT's problematic stability. Stability does not help with mosquito control, so the lack of stability does not hurt effectiveness.
Consider the Silicon Valley. 150 years ago the land that Facebook is on was considered uninhabitable due to mosquitos. If DDT was that crucial to killing mosquitos, then mosquitos should have recovered in the 40 years since the ban.
Yes, DDT builds up in organisms and can cause reproductive issues in some birds. The point the OP is trying to make is that we as a society decided that bird health is more important than human health.
And I'm not sure I understand your Silicon Valley example. The land that Facebook was on was drained and backfilled. No standing water, no mosquitos. What does DDT have to do with it?
There is evidence of adverse human health effects resulting from long-term exposure to DDT, including reproductive health effects at birth (preterm birth and low birth weight); growth reduction in boys, earlier puberty in girls and neurodevelopmental impairment in infants.
There is also evidence of neurotoxic effects in adults. Adverse pregnancies and breast cancer in women; and reduction in semen quality and development of pancreatic cancers in men.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444522...
The fact remains that no pesticide is completely non-toxic. Compared to other pesticides, DDT is actually quite safe.
If you look at the wikipedia summary of the current position on long-term toxicity, you can see that it's not a settled issue.[1]
"Overall, in spite of some positive associations for some cancers within certain subgroups of people, there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans."
Women develop breast cancer typically around 50 years age ( the median age at diagnostics is 61) with around 230.000 new cases in US in 2015, and at a relatively stable rate (~12% of women). Thus we are far away to see the real results of DDT banning in US. Maybe we will not have a clear answer until 2022, when the women born in 1972 will reach 50 years.
...for the handful of sprayings before mosquitos evolve resistance again.
...also assuming you are fine with killing off lots of other insects including bees and other pollinators, since DDT is a very broad spectrum insecticide.
...not to mention the problem with persistence in the environment and bioaccumulation. We almost managed to kill off bald eagles after the last go-around with DDT. Now that they have recovered, let's start spraying again, right? I mean, birds... who needs them, they're noisy and their turds are gross.
Handled by corrupt and incompetent Brazilian public health officials? Thanks but I prefer the mosquito.
That's the real problem from which all others derive.