This is of course a mouse study, on mice bred to have an immune deficiency to Zika. Immediate extrapolation to humans is a little premature.
I've taken to scanning the NHS's page analyzing health news stories. It's a very useful antidote to potential sensationalism: they go to the original source and summarize it fairly clearly.
Even without seeing headlines like this, I have felt for a while that Zika is being downplayed in the media. I remember mass hysteria over mad cow disease, bird flu, and ebola. Zika seems at least on par with these to me. This disease is so new that we really don't know how long women have to wait before they can get pregnant safely-- if ever. We know that it stays latent in semen for a long time after being infected. Certainly it sounds very scary.
But for the most part it's being reported by the media in a very calm manner and I see relatively no panic. And that's not to say that mass panic is the right response to Zika, but just that our global reaction to Zika seems wildly inconsistent with our super-diseases of yesteryears. When the ebola crisis was going on across the Atlantic ocean, I saw many normal (albeit misguided) people in my Midwestern supermarket stockpiling bottled water and dry goods.
Meanwhile with Zika, they're estimating that 25% of Puerto Rico will have the disease before 2017. And yet I don't feel any real sense of panic in this country.
What gives? Is society just collectively becoming more reasonable? I find that hard to believe.
Be that as it may, global panic relating to HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Mad Cow Disease, Bird Flu, etc. was not primarily based in scientific reason.
Consider Princess Diana shaking hands with an AIDS patient in 1991 and how big of a deal that was.
I'll admit that I don't know much about Zika outside of the few articles I've read. And I'll also admit that I'm pretty afraid from what I've read. But what I find most interesting about Zika is this sociological aspect where the soccer fans in Brazil are chanting "Ziiikaaaa" on goal kicks and it seems like we've kind of just accepted that this is going to happen. Thousands of babies have been born with abnormalities already. I'd expect more panic.
Do you know what "ponce" means? It means an effeminate man.
So a woman who might be wanting to start a family has the audacity to bring insect repellent with her to Brazil, and she deserves to be harassed by thousands of soccer fans (and mocked by a HN user)?
I'm guessing it's along the lines of "Zika seems to only affect pregnant women, I'm either A) not a woman or B) not planning on getting pregnant any time soon, this will all be over by then."
I guess as Wikipedia has it the infection "often causes no or only mild symptoms." Even so it's not something you want. Personally I think they should crack on with the Oxitec GM mozzies which on balance of probabilities should cause far less problems than the disease. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/14/florida-keys...
It's probably a mix of a) society becoming more stupid b) the media not being able to hype something that doesn't kill at rates similar to bird flu or ebola c) the media not having as close a connection with the victims as media darling diseases like HIV.
This is something that can cause severe retardation in children at somewhere on the order of 5-10x more than Downs Syndrome where mothers are infected- and that's comparing to rates for Western countries with women having children at the extreme outer edge of the healthy childbearing age.
Bird flu is bad, but when it kills, it's a rapid death, and the places where it has occurred don't have particular problems with population replcement. Zika, on the other hand, can mean that the mother's life and a fair amount of government and NGO money is going to be tied up caring for the affected baby. Not as bad an impact as HIV has had in the third world (outside of Cuba), but it still needs stopping before the problem grows.
1. The journalists really want to travel to Rio to report on the games, so they evaluate the risks rationally and suddenly the risk does not seem so great, none of them ever plan on traveling to rural West Africa.
Guillain-Barré (normally 1 in 100,000, it's 1 out of 5k-10k with Zika ) is quite scary as well, basically you get locked inside your own body and either die or have a multi-year recovery if they identify it within the first day or two. I know two people who have gotten it in the last year:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/apr/04/n...
There's a wider spectrum on the severity scale with G-B. My experience was ~ 3 months wherein I lost sensation from my legs up to my waist when I was 17 or 18 years old. I had to walk with crutches for a few weeks. I then quickly recovered and have no lingering ill effect.
It is still among the swath of horrifying things for which we have little-to-no preventative or responsive care.
My dad got it back in 2000, when we knew very little about it - not that we know much more today, honestly. It killed him, eventually. Blood clots from being paralyzed for a few months. Hospital didn't put him on blood thinners.
So, I know disrupting ecologies can have profound consequences that aren't obvious ahead of time, but let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume we have a 100% effective way to kill all mosquitoes within 18-24 months.
What are the known disruptions and consequences of this? Do we have ways to combat problems due to that?
What are the probable/theoretical distuptions and consequences? Do we have have to combat these?
Not that I'm suggesting we do this, but with our current understanding, how much trouble do we think it would cause in the case of mosquitoes?
Beyond your question of ecological impact of killing all mosquitoes, as others mentioned they don't all need to be killed.
Historically, South Florida engaged in annual mosquitoe controlling campaigns. Essentially aerial spraying during the Summer. These were stopped because of the budget cuts related to the collapse of the Florida housing market.
Not only did the mosquitoes become intolerable, but before Zika we had a breakout of mosquitoe transmitted Dengue fever. Moreover, the historical mosquitoe controlling never killed all mosquitoes but the were effective in preventing breakouts like Dengue Fever and Zika.
When I was growing up along the Indian River in Florida, they used to send trucks through the neighborhood on summer nights that sent out huge clouds of mosquito killing fog. <s>I'm sure that was perfectly safe.</s>
OK, so how do we do this? Is there a candidate I have to vote for, or a fund I have to finance? Let's kill all the mosquitoes already.
> Given the fact that species transmits so many dangerous pathogens it’s very unfortunate for humans that they are such great survivors, and have been rapidly expanding their range during the last couple of decades... Aedes albopictus is now considered to be one of the 100 world’s worst invasive species...
Unintended consequences still manage to arise most of the time when people think they can play god and mess with nature in that way. Until relatively recently, people didn't even know that hummingbirds relied heavily on eating small insects like mosquitos rather than just drinking nectar. Undoubtedly there are many things like that which we simply aren't aware of.
I've never understood this argument. We have been "playing god" since we settled down 10,000 years ago and started practicing agriculture. The ways in which we selectively cultivate/breed plants/animals have do doubt caused major changes in ecosystems. Yet, if we had not done those things, we probably would not be here today.
Furthermore, where do you draw the line? We are very close to eradicating the polio virus. Do we know ALL the consequences of doing so? No. Does that mean we should stop? No. We have, at some point, decided that it causes an immense amount of human suffering and decided to eradicate it. Same with certain species of mosquitoes.
> Furthermore, where do you draw the line? We are very close to eradicating the polio virus. Do we know ALL the consequences of doing so? No. Does that mean we should stop? No. We have, at some point, decided that it causes an immense amount of human suffering and decided to eradicate it. Same with certain species of mosquitoes.
> I've never understood this argument. We have been "playing god" since we settled down 10,000 years ago and started practicing agriculture.
Yes, and as the above poster stated, often with unintended consequences - many of which have been disasterous. Even after thousands of years of agriculture we've still made monumental mistakes, such as the creation of the Dust Bowl. For an example involving pest elimination specifically, you can look at the Chinese effort to eradicate sparrows.
That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try to eradicate the mosquitoes that are harmful to humans. However, when people are unable to appreciate the problems that unintended consequences have had in the past, and the risks they may pose for the future, it doesn't seem like we're making the decision based on an honest and sober look at the facts.
Viruses are not exactly living organisms, so the comparisons you make are not apt.
There's a huge difference between any virus and an organism which plays a role in a super complex ecosystem (and our food chain) we don't entirely understand.
Likewise, there is a difference between playing god in a self-contained environment like a farm, but which is not the case with the wider environment.
Yes, humans have driven many species to extinction but I think in retrospect this would have been inadvisable.
Everything in engineering is a compromise, and ecological engineering is no different. We still do it anyway. We get to do it because we're humans, and the other species aren't.
It is not reasonable to demand assurances of complete safety, or freedom from all possible adverse consequences, before taking action in defense of our own species.
Hard to see what relevance that has to mosquito eradication. Evidence suggests we've done a lot of harm to coral ecosystems around the world, but not as a result of the careful study and consideration that we're applying to the idea of wiping out certain harmful mosquito species.
You don't even need to kill all mosquitos, just the ones that bite humans and carry disease. South America actually did manage to nearly eradicate Aedes aegypti, though the success was short lived.
Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.
> Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.
Could it not have crowded out some other niche that will be left empty if they were removed?
> Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.
This logic may have been applicable way back when the first few Aedes aegypti made their way to the New World, but at this point, so much has changed in our New World, and we don't really know all the ecological changes that Aedes aegypti may have already caused. Perhaps, they have become an integral part of our society.
> Perhaps, they have become an integral part of our society.
Perhaps, but I don't believe anyone has demonstrated that mosquitoes have this crucial in impact to he health of the ecosystem. In fact, the aforementioned Nature article explicitly argues against that idea, though obviously it's only a sample size of 1.
I'm aware of that possibility, but their main niche seems to be sucking human blood and passing diseases around. Other mosquitos feed on other animals and plants, but A. aegypti really loves to eat people.
> So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.
I wonder what kind of South American bug pollinates Cherimoya blooms? The Cherimoya fruit is exceptional, but producing it in California requires hand pollination since some bug that lives in the Andes isn't in California.
Hopefully whatever man dumps into the environment won't create some new nasty... flesh-eating locusts perhaps?
They did this in Brasil decades back. Mandatory home inspections where they had patrols go through every single house and eliminate water pools where mosquitos could breed, mostly all made by humans.
I believe the eliminated mosquitos for a certain period of time but this technique didn't work in the states because Americans were adverse to government agencies coming into their homes and telling them what do to.
Lots of places in the US have mosquito control boards that go around inspecting properties. For example, this page lists residential site inspections as one of the methods being used to combat Zika virus in Florida:
I did a bit of research a while back, and it seems like no mosquito fills a vital role in its local ecology. They pollinate flowers, but less effectively than other insects. They're prey for insectivores, but no known insectivore preys primarily on mosquitoes. Their prey doesn't usually die, so there's nothing whose numbers they're keeping down.
Is it possible that mosquitoes spread beneficial pathogens among humans, in addition to the deadly pathogens they are known for? The concept of overprotective parents preventing their children from building their immune system comes to mind.
Since the definitions of pathogen is not just "microorganism", but "microorganism that can cause disease", the idea of "beneficial pathogen" appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Yes. What if mosquitoes inoculate us (and/or other animals) against diseases during childhood? Absent mosquitoes, I wonder if we would become more vulnerable to those diseases entering our systems through other vectors.
Yeah, we humans are so good at making animals extinct. I can't believe we haven't done that with human-biting mosquitoes (or other nasties) a long time ago. It is time to do that; nature will find a way without the buggers.
> Yeah, we humans are so good at making animals extinct.
Well, largely by crowding them out of food or space. While species we compete with get the short end of the stick, those that we have parasitical or symbiotic relationships with have quite a different experience.
Zika should receive more attention if we discover it now affects all adults and not just a minority of them. That's reasonable.
(If your point was about male privilege/priority then I don't disagree, but I don't think it's necessary to read that into this situation because the number of both male and female adult lives Zika could impact may have just grown enormously.)
I've taken to scanning the NHS's page analyzing health news stories. It's a very useful antidote to potential sensationalism: they go to the original source and summarize it fairly clearly.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/08August/Pages/Animal-research-s...