Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 03 2016, @11:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the time-to-invest-in-nets-and-DEET dept.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is intensifying efforts to investigate the mosquito-borne Zika virus, which is believed to cause microcephaly (infants born with abnormally small brains):

The World Health Organization has declared the cluster of microcephaly associated with the spread of the Zika virus to be a public health emergency of international concern — a designation reserved for an"extraordinary event" that is "serious, unusual or unexpected." Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO's director-general, said during a press briefing Monday that an international coordinated response was needed to improve mosquito control as well as to expedite the development of tests that detect the Zika virus.

The declaration is chiefly important to intensify the efforts to prove that the Zika virus is causing microcephaly in infants. Essentially, Chan said, if the Zika virus was not thought to be causing these neurological problems in newborns, it would not be a "clinically serious condition." Dr. David L. Heymann, assistant director-general of the WHO, said that it was unclear how long it would take to definitively link the Zika virus to microcephaly in children.

Brazil's Health Minister says that the Zika outbreak is worse than believed because most of the infected show no symptoms.

Here is another article taking down a conspiracy theory that claims that the Zika outbreak is the result of genetically modified mosquitoes and intended for population control.

The New York Times , Wikipedia.

Previously: World Health Organization to Convene Emergency Meeting for Zika Virus


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Bobs on Wednesday February 03 2016, @01:30PM

    by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday February 03 2016, @01:30PM (#298539)

    The prevalence of a new widespread, birth-defect causing disease may catalyze the loosening of abortion laws in Central and South America.

    The history is that rubella is presented as a large catalyst as making then illegal abortions acceptable in the 50-60's.

    And Zika creating widespread microcephaly may play the same role now.

    In a sense, it’s analogous to rubella in the 1950s and 1960s. The rubella virus, when it infects pregnant women in the first six months of pregnancy causes birth defects. Usually this is deafness accompanied by vision problems and heart defects, though even more serious problems often occur including mental retardation. Today, abortion is recommended in those exceptional circumstances where it does happen. While rubella fortunately isn’t a concern anymore–it’s the “R” in the MMR vaccine–in the pre-vaccine era, it was a terrifying prospect and led to underground acceptance of abortion–it was the circumstance, even though rare, where most people would ‘allow’ an abortion.

    ...

    I find it incredible that the NY Times story–or any of the other coverage I’ve read–doesn’t mention that abortion is illegal in Brazil. It’s not an option at all, even if a woman were to be seropositive for Zika virus. If Zika virus isn’t stamped out, and given the particular mosquito vector that spreads it, that doesn’t seem likely, this disease very well could change Brazil’s no-abortion policy.

    From Mike the Mad Biologist's blog [mikethemadbiologist.com] (Helping idiots who desperately need my assistance by calling them fucking morons since 2004)

    Also interesting if this has an effect on US Presidential politics and those in Texas [webmd.com]. Are the Republican candidates going to hedge about never allowing abortions or support more state care for the impaired children?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday February 03 2016, @02:26PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 03 2016, @02:26PM (#298551)

    Zika is a drop in a bucket as far as Brazil is concerned: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/2/15-152363/en/ [who.int]

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by quacking duck on Wednesday February 03 2016, @02:49PM

      by quacking duck (1395) on Wednesday February 03 2016, @02:49PM (#298555)

      That seems to address mortality of the already-living. Zika appears to be different for two reasons: high likelihood it's being passed from mother to fetus, with resulting brain defects; and transmission via mosquito which of course means it's not limited to the poor population and conditions in which they live.

      Dengue fever fits the mosquito vector, but my quick googling suggests it's not been conclusively proven to pass to the fetus, or that it's rare enough compared to Zika, and the effects even if it does are not as dire for the newborn.

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday February 03 2016, @05:45PM

        by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday February 03 2016, @05:45PM (#298585)

        No. There's already the anencephaly exception for fetus brain damage in Brazil. There will be no abortion laws changes otherwise.

        --
        compiling...
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @05:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @05:48PM (#298586)

    Are the Republican candidates going to hedge about never allowing abortions or support more state care for the impaired children?

    Are you kidding? They'll be recruiting these pinheads as future candidates for office.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 03 2016, @07:21PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday February 03 2016, @07:21PM (#298635) Journal

    Are the Republican candidates going to hedge about never allowing abortions or support more state care for the impaired children?
     
      No