Mav you really need to read this stuff before you post, your link supports my case not yours!
But surprisingly in the stats link an interesting footnote;
As an aside, people who are asymptomatic have antibodies to the virus, some of the very new research is suggesting it may well be the Zika antibodies and not the virus that are doing the damage in the 2nd trimester. If that is true the concern is that the immunisation might do as much harm as it does good if the timing is wrong! No wonder they want money quickly, the cure might be worse than the disease! It would be the first time in history humans have tried to fix something and made things worse! All in all it's shouts patience is a virtue.
That CDC statement is basically arguing a case for more money as I outlined earlier. The article even discusses having to remove funds from other far more immediate and serious health threats to fund the Zika fight.
That is scaremongering at it's finest, scientists playing politics to get funding, they should be working for the GOP!
(09-05-2016, 12:35 AM)Mav link Wrote:Hmmm ... let me see. Do I side with some guy tapping away on a calculator or the Director of the world-renowned CDC? Tough one, that. Maybe I'll go with the CDC guy.The numbers are important, they can be trusted when opinions cannot, and if an expert or the media publishes rubbery or misleading numbers they should be called to account! If you had used a calculator you might better off!
(09-05-2016, 12:35 AM)Mav link Wrote:By the way, do you think that the CDC might prioritise testing pregnant women or that pregnant women might be more likely to seek out testing and advice?That is not what was stated or contained in the very article that the count links to, you coloured that to suit your argument. Further, given that Zika is a notifiable condition and spreads not just by mosquito but is also sexually transmitted, the referenced stats should not favor a specific sex.
But surprisingly in the stats link an interesting footnote;
Quote:§Only includes cases meeting the probable or confirmed CSTE case definition and does not include asymptomatic infections unless the case is a pregnant woman with a complication of pregnancyThey exclude people from the count who are asymptomatic(healthy carriers) unless they are pregnant with a complication, which introduces a selection bias. Women who were pregnant, had tested positive with Zika, but had no symptoms or pregnancy complications are excluded from the figures!
As an aside, people who are asymptomatic have antibodies to the virus, some of the very new research is suggesting it may well be the Zika antibodies and not the virus that are doing the damage in the 2nd trimester. If that is true the concern is that the immunisation might do as much harm as it does good if the timing is wrong! No wonder they want money quickly, the cure might be worse than the disease! It would be the first time in history humans have tried to fix something and made things worse! All in all it's shouts patience is a virtue.
That CDC statement is basically arguing a case for more money as I outlined earlier. The article even discusses having to remove funds from other far more immediate and serious health threats to fund the Zika fight.
That is scaremongering at it's finest, scientists playing politics to get funding, they should be working for the GOP!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"