Posted on 05/12/2016 3:22:18 AM PDT by Enchante
"Which leads to a simple question: But for the Games, would anyone recommend sending an extra half a million visitors into Brazil right now? Of course not: mass migration into the heart of an outbreak is a public health no-brainer. And given the choice between accelerating a dangerous new disease or not—for it is impossible that Games will slow Zika down—the answer should be a no-brainer for the Olympic organizers too. Putting sentimentality aside, clearly the Rio 2016 Games must not proceed."
(Excerpt) Read more at harvardpublichealthreview.org ...
complete title (unfortunately the academic author does not pack a concise message to the front of the title):
“Off the Podium: Why Public Health Concerns for Global Spread of Zika Virus Means That Rio de Janeiro’s 2016 Olympic Games Must Not Proceed”
it’s not hysteria to realize that the impending 2016 Summer Olympics will be an international public health disaster
countless thousands of people will return to dozens of other countries infected by the Zika virus
Or, they could spray DDT all around and kill the mosquitoes.
yeah but they never will..... DDT, bad.... disease, good..
In the liberal mindset, disease good, when it happens to other people, DDT bad because it causes an expansion of population in places they want for nature preserves. Besides, I thought zika was a relatively mild condition, unless you’re pregnant.
What?? Use common sense?? Never....
Most people who get Zika do not develop symptoms, and the link with pregnancy is correlative only, and has not been definitively established.
A woman who has already had Zika and recovered is also forever protected from getting it again and does not have to worry if she gets pregnant.
Or, in the words of the distinguished Harvard epidemiologist, “We’re all gonna die! Sauve qui peut!”
More tax dollars to the UN is the answer I think. And taking away more liberties from Americans.
That’s always worked well in the past.
Never mind the risk and human costs, there's Big Bucks involved.
IOW, developing vaccines should be straightforward. Except that we have demonized the pharmaceutical industry to the point of near extinction. No one will ever make a penny developing the vaccine, and the sniveling ingrates will sue them out of business because it doesn't prevent cancer.
Add to that the anti-vaccine fanatics who call vaccines "toxins" and loudly decry the pharmaceutical industry for pushing vaccines only for profit. They will do their best to dissuade people from taking the vaccines, and too many people fall for it.
Vaccines are not profitable. A lot of vaccine development takes place at universities and small start-up biotechs (probably funded by "angel" donors); pharmaceutical companies won't take on development of a prototype until the small biotechs or university labs have already done the costly groundwork of weeding out the non-viable protovaccines.
Of course, vaccine development is costly--just like any other drug development. People who deride "big pharma" profit always conveniently leave development cost out of the equation.
I’ll give a hearty second to that recomendation. Maybe it would be the first step to rehabilitating DDT in the public s eyes and save countless lives across the planet.
DDT works really well. But in the past it was overused in too high of concentration. Studies in Africa have shown that safe levels of DDT both kills the mosquito and is harmless to humans. Bring it back
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.