Zika in Cozumel

[RyanT]

DJDiverDan is correct that the causal link between microcephaly and Zika is unclear. And this is especially puzzling for a virus that has been around for a long time. Aside from Brazil, we are beginning to see some additional emerging cases (i.e. higher than normal rates) of microcephaly in Central America that seem to be associated with Zika. Again, although the causal link is not clear, the number of associative cases does give me pause. As I've mentioned previously, this is just not a virus that I personally worry about. But, I have some colleagues who work in the tropics with me, who are expecting, and they have avoided tropical travel this year. I would do the same in their shoes, and it seems like the right thing to do, even for what may be a relatively low risk.

 

[Zman96]

The way I look at it with Zika is take precaution and don't panic. As a man with a pregnant wife, after trying for many years, we will exercise more precaution than the average person probably needs. There seems to be a correlation between Zika and birth defects, while we don't know how strong, any is enough for me at this point. My wife makes sure to wear clothes that keeps her protected and we avoid being outside when mosquitoes are most active. We will not live in a bubble but we will be pragmatic about it.

 

[cvchief]

And maybe you guys should call the CDC and tell them it is only maybe?

“This study marks a turning point in the Zika outbreak. It is now clear that the virus causes microcephaly. We are also launching further studies to determine whether children who have microcephaly born to mothers infected by the Zika virus is the tip of the iceberg of what we could see in damaging effects on the brain and other developmental problems,” said Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., director of the CDC. “We’ve now confirmed what mounting evidence has suggested, affirming our early guidance to pregnant women and their partners to take steps to avoid Zika infection and to health care professionals who are talking to patients every day. We are working to do everything possible to protect the American public.”

CDC Press Releases

 

[DandyDon]

I usually forget to spray with repellent in Coz as the skeeters just don't bother me there. Last week I forgot to pack repellent for my trip, bought some at Mega altho I couldn't decipher the DEET percentage. With the list of mosquito carrying diseases now, I tried to remember to spray it often.

I don't know if they still do, but STD clinics around here used to encourage Well-Tests for people to be sure they were not carrying asymptomatic infections. It seems they need to add Zika to the routine tests. The "Food and Drug Administration revised its guidance to recommend that all blood donations in the United States and its territories be tested for the Zika virus."
First case of Zika transmission from person without symptoms - CNN.com

 

[DjDiverDan]

Yes, I may well be overly skeptical about many so-called scientific studies. But there is a very good reason for my skepticism. Two articles published in Reason Magazine, Broken Science, in the February 2016 Issue, and Most Scientific Studies are Wrong, just out in the August 2016 Issue, identify the problem - a huge number of scientific papers, peer-reviewed and published in recognized journals, report results which cannot be replicated. The problem applies to a wide range of scientific literature, from medical research to climate change. A large pharmaceutical company, examining academic research papers for ideas on drug research, found that nearly two-thirds of the published peer-reviewed papers, 43 out of 67, reported new "findings" which could not be replicated even after rerunning the published experiments 2-3 times. In research on Breast Cancer, it turns out that a wide range of University medical research teams were using a skin cancer cell line, rather than a breast cancer line, to test their theories, and after several very promising papers were published in peer-reviewed medical journals, when the work was taken up by a Pharmaceutical company, it was found to be worthless. In Epidemiology, a Stanford statistician found that nearly 90% of published academic papers reported experimental or study outcomes that could not be replicated. In climate change science, the so-called "97% consensus" is almost completely fabricated - yes, there is very broad concensus on a very narrow claim - that: (1) the Earth has been warming ever since the end of the "Little Ice Age" (about 1850); and (2) human-produced CO2 has contributed TO SOME INDETERMINATE EXTENT to that warming. There is NO scientific consensus concerning just how much human-emitted CO2 has contributed to the warming, or that the warming will necessarily continue, or that it is harmful, much less catastrophic, or that humans should, or even can, ameliorate the warming.

There is a lot of pseudo-science out there masquerading as real science, and a lot of it gets reported because fear and panic sells. Pay attention to it, sure. But be skeptical of claims that report gloom and doom, very skeptical.

 

[cvchief]

1. Did you have to bring up climate change? This thread is doomed.

2. Looking at the risk/reward test, for JUST wearing some good DEET repellent, you can GREATLY reduce your chance of getting Zika, passing during the old Bob's your uncle, guv, and/or infecting a pregnant or near pregnant woman near you. Risk of wearing Deet? None, really. You don't have to go out of your way to stick your finger in the eye of scientists on this one. No one is locking anyone in quarantine and what not. And dengue is DEFINITELY real and present in Cozumel, though not as big a deal as it has been. The city is fogging a bunch too. There are many good reasons to wear some DEET and very few not to wear it. This isn't one to be skeptical and not wear DEET.

 

[ggunn]

Please, no one rise to the climate change denial bait, OK?

 

[cvchief]

Wow. Made it past Gun. Figured he would be the first out the barn on that one....

 

[DjDiverDan]

If you will read my posts, you will see that never once did I recommend not taking precautions. Indeed, I specifically mentioned the risks to pregnant women, and the regular use of mosquito repellant. But those are precautions everyone should follow in any event, because there are much more serious and dangerous mosquito-borne illnesses, like Dengue, Malaria, Chikungunya, Yellow fever, etc., all less prevalent than Zika (at the moment), but all more dangerous to the average tourist. My only point was that the current panic over Zika was unwarranted - why do so many people chose to ignore what I wrote about it still being a good idea to take precautions, and act as if I said the opposite?

 

[cvchief]

This all changed with the claims that Zika could cause microencephaly and other devastating birth defects. But even those claims are highly questionable. .

(emphasis added)

Because this is what you lead with. Not 'some dispute', not 'some questions', but HIGHLY questionable. That is all but saying its false. You went after it big time. That is VERY strong language when the CDC concluded it is causing microencephaly. I get the whole rail on shoddy science and all, but you need to take a more measured approach, if I might be so bold as to suggest.

I read a post on FB from a guy who lives there who bascially said he didn't care, he had 'developed a resistance' to mosquitoes and lets them bite him. Zika won't bother him and even if the other part is true, he doesn't care about infecting someone else. Too many people want to make up their own facts and go with them. Not that you did that, but you may well encourage it.

'Oh well if it highly questionable, why worry at all. Old DJDD said its all BS hype. And I never got dengue, so no worries.'