Would it be wrong to eradicate the mosquito?
January 29, 2016 1:53 PM Subscribe
By spreading malaria, dengue fever, West Nile, yellow fever and now the Zika virus, they are the most dangerous animal in the world. What would happen if we got rid of them? It sounds like a promising idea, but what would take their place and would the rainforests survive?
Previously which mentions the trial in Brazil that this article says has reduced the numbers by 92%.
posted by soelo at 1:58 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by soelo at 1:58 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
As long as we're wiping out species left and right anyway, why not have some fun with it?
posted by Eddie Mars at 2:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by Eddie Mars at 2:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [46 favorites]
Feels somewhat like deciding whether or not to pull on that one annoying loose thread in a piece of clothing. Could be a success or could be a total disaster.
Given that we're already conducting a myriad of massive multi-variable experiments with potentially apocalyptic outcomes for us on the only life supporting planet we have I'm not sure one more would make a whole lot of difference.
But, as the article points out, it's really just a hypothetical scenario right now anyways.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:02 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Given that we're already conducting a myriad of massive multi-variable experiments with potentially apocalyptic outcomes for us on the only life supporting planet we have I'm not sure one more would make a whole lot of difference.
But, as the article points out, it's really just a hypothetical scenario right now anyways.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:02 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm curious- do the dangerous mosquitoes serve a purpose the non-dangerous ones don't serve? Could we eradicate the dangerous species while breeding another population to replace them with? Would they be able to feed on the local flora?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:03 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:03 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Solution: We just breed giant more voracious immortal frogs.
posted by innocentsabored at 2:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by innocentsabored at 2:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [25 favorites]
I thought real life eccentric gazillionaire Nathan Myhrvold was going to kill all the mosquitos with lasers? What ever happened to that plan? I loved that plan.
posted by Wretch729 at 2:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 2:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
Science writer David Quammen has argued that mosquitoes have limited the destructive impact of humanity on nature. "Mosquitoes make tropical rainforests, for humans, virtually uninhabitable," he said.
Rainforests, home to a large share of our total plant and animal species, are under serious threat from man-made destruction. "Nothing has done more to delay this catastrophe over the past 10,000 years, than the mosquito," Quammen said.
Well there you go.
posted by emjaybee at 2:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [56 favorites]
Rainforests, home to a large share of our total plant and animal species, are under serious threat from man-made destruction. "Nothing has done more to delay this catastrophe over the past 10,000 years, than the mosquito," Quammen said.
Well there you go.
posted by emjaybee at 2:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [56 favorites]
What Quammen has said could be said about lots of things that have been destroyed by overpopulation, pollution , etc. Should we simply vanish as a species and problem solved?
posted by Postroad at 2:12 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 2:12 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Solution: We just breed giant more voracious immortal frogs.
That didn't work too well with cane toads in Australia.
posted by thingamarob at 2:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
That didn't work too well with cane toads in Australia.
posted by thingamarob at 2:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
That didn't work too well with cane toads in Australia.
They weren't giant-er and immortal-y enough.
Third times a charm!
posted by innocentsabored at 2:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
They weren't giant-er and immortal-y enough.
Third times a charm!
posted by innocentsabored at 2:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
I will respectfully defend any species that does not vomit directly into my bloodstream.
Seriously, you want mosquitoes, make an offshore Culicidae Park or something. Fuck mosquitoes. The ecosystem will recover. Life, uh, finds a way.
posted by phooky at 2:34 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Seriously, you want mosquitoes, make an offshore Culicidae Park or something. Fuck mosquitoes. The ecosystem will recover. Life, uh, finds a way.
posted by phooky at 2:34 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Solution: We just breed giant more voracious immortal frogs.
Actually, amphibians, and frogs and salamanders in particular, are having a really hard time right now.
posted by amtho at 2:35 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Actually, amphibians, and frogs and salamanders in particular, are having a really hard time right now.
posted by amtho at 2:35 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
"One argument against is that it would be morally wrong to remove an entire species," says Jonathan Pugh, from Oxford University's Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.
The world didn't end when we eradicated smallpox.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:43 PM on January 29, 2016 [27 favorites]
The world didn't end when we eradicated smallpox.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:43 PM on January 29, 2016 [27 favorites]
Metafilter: we're already conducting a myriad of massive multi-variable experiments with potentially apocalyptic outcomes
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:53 PM on January 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:53 PM on January 29, 2016 [17 favorites]
I will respectfully defend any species that does not vomit directly into my bloodstream.
Well lah-dee-dah, Mr. High Standards over here
posted by clockzero at 2:58 PM on January 29, 2016 [59 favorites]
Well lah-dee-dah, Mr. High Standards over here
posted by clockzero at 2:58 PM on January 29, 2016 [59 favorites]
The world didn't end when we eradicated smallpox.
Smallpox is (and was) actual nightmare fuel and didn't, in any way I'm cognizant of, tie into the ecosystem. Mosquito borne diseases aren't on scale if the graph includes smallpox.
Mosquitoes suck. Maybe there's a way to keep them away from people without empirically determining what their absence does to an ecosystem. Though if that's been done on a small scale and there hasn't been an impact then by all means, open that niche back up for better tenants.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:00 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Smallpox is (and was) actual nightmare fuel and didn't, in any way I'm cognizant of, tie into the ecosystem. Mosquito borne diseases aren't on scale if the graph includes smallpox.
Mosquitoes suck. Maybe there's a way to keep them away from people without empirically determining what their absence does to an ecosystem. Though if that's been done on a small scale and there hasn't been an impact then by all means, open that niche back up for better tenants.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:00 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, you want mosquitoes, make an offshore Culicidae Park or something.
Worst. Vacation. Ever.
posted by dephlogisticated at 3:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
Worst. Vacation. Ever.
posted by dephlogisticated at 3:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [20 favorites]
Having thought about this for a few years now, I remain cautiously in support of eradicating a few of the mosquito species that most hurt humans. I haven't heard very many solid arguments against it, and most take the form of "it's possible that..." Obviously the fact that all the world's ecosystems are hugely destabilized already doesn't make it moral to destabilize them further, but it does mean that these things are not in a delicate balance waiting to topple with the removal of one piece. We've gotten rid of smallpox and almost polio, as well as nearly eradicating guinea worm, and I think few would object to eliminating malaria, even though like the mosquitos that carry it, it has probably played a large role in reducing human expansion.
But basically, it's just very hard to argue against it. You have to be willing to kill literally millions of people a year for the sake of uncertain environmental concerns. I appreciate that a dedication to the environment often means (eg) less oil and less industry, and in the short term if we cut back on those things abruptly some countries (especially in the developing world) may in fact experience more illness and death. But generally the assumption is that in the long term, humanity will be better off. But I really don't see the corresponding argument for mosquitos. They are some of the worst scourges of humanity, and against millions of deaths and illnesses a year, the moral argument against taking the risk and wiping them out if we can is tough to make. I really don't see how continuing to let so many die for uncertain benefits can be defended in the long run, particularly since if you took a global survey, I would bet the vast majority -- including, of course, those actively ill -- would be in favor of it. But obviously this is a complicated issue, and it's worth a hell of a lot more discussion before doing anything as serious as this. But it remains the case that every day we wait, thousands of people die, so it should be discussed.
posted by chortly at 3:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [23 favorites]
But basically, it's just very hard to argue against it. You have to be willing to kill literally millions of people a year for the sake of uncertain environmental concerns. I appreciate that a dedication to the environment often means (eg) less oil and less industry, and in the short term if we cut back on those things abruptly some countries (especially in the developing world) may in fact experience more illness and death. But generally the assumption is that in the long term, humanity will be better off. But I really don't see the corresponding argument for mosquitos. They are some of the worst scourges of humanity, and against millions of deaths and illnesses a year, the moral argument against taking the risk and wiping them out if we can is tough to make. I really don't see how continuing to let so many die for uncertain benefits can be defended in the long run, particularly since if you took a global survey, I would bet the vast majority -- including, of course, those actively ill -- would be in favor of it. But obviously this is a complicated issue, and it's worth a hell of a lot more discussion before doing anything as serious as this. But it remains the case that every day we wait, thousands of people die, so it should be discussed.
posted by chortly at 3:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [23 favorites]
Actually, amphibians, and frogs and salamanders in particular, are having a really hard time right now.
But when I stop to help them out they just do that thing where they stare at you, stare that the spare change, stare at you again and then lick their own eyes. And I'm like "uuuuuh, your own your own."
posted by innocentsabored at 3:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
But when I stop to help them out they just do that thing where they stare at you, stare that the spare change, stare at you again and then lick their own eyes. And I'm like "uuuuuh, your own your own."
posted by innocentsabored at 3:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
No. Next question.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:10 PM on January 29, 2016
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:10 PM on January 29, 2016
"Solution: We just breed giant more voracious immortal frogs."
More?
posted by komara at 3:12 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
More?
posted by komara at 3:12 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
NUKE THE RAINFORESTS!
posted by blue_beetle at 3:14 PM on January 29, 2016
posted by blue_beetle at 3:14 PM on January 29, 2016
Mosquito borne diseases aren't on scale if the graph includes smallpox.
Slackermagee
Completely wrong:
The damage mosquito-borne diseases have inflicted on humanity has no comparison and cannot be overstated.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:14 PM on January 29, 2016 [39 favorites]
Slackermagee
Completely wrong:
Various scientists and scientific journals, including Nature and National Geographic, have theorized that malaria may have killed around or above half of all humans who have ever lived.Malaria alone is the single greatest killer of humans in history, and that's before we add in things like dengue or yellow fever.
The damage mosquito-borne diseases have inflicted on humanity has no comparison and cannot be overstated.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:14 PM on January 29, 2016 [39 favorites]
Mosquito borne diseases aren't on scale if the graph includes smallpox.
I'd respectfully ask to see a cite for that. Drug companies like GSK and NGOs like the Gates Foundation spend billions each year on malaria research alone, while the UN says that smallpox cost $300M to eradicate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:15 PM on January 29, 2016
I'd respectfully ask to see a cite for that. Drug companies like GSK and NGOs like the Gates Foundation spend billions each year on malaria research alone, while the UN says that smallpox cost $300M to eradicate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:15 PM on January 29, 2016
I'll take that back, completely blanked on malaria.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 3:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
And that cost situation I described is just for research in vaccine development, and ignores the ongoing economic and social costs of infection and reinfection just with malaria.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:17 PM on January 29, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:17 PM on January 29, 2016
Fish, bats, frogs, birds, insects say they find mosquitoes delicious and necessary to live at all, well and turtles too. Our exposure to mosquito bites might help keep our immune systems in tone, in tune with what is out there.
Bad idea to kill off a major food source of the entire biosphere. Even arctic birds live on them in the season, polar bears who eat the fish who live on them. Catastrophe.
Besides who let this dog out? We did. We need to fix our relationship with the global temperature.
posted by Oyéah at 3:17 PM on January 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bad idea to kill off a major food source of the entire biosphere. Even arctic birds live on them in the season, polar bears who eat the fish who live on them. Catastrophe.
Besides who let this dog out? We did. We need to fix our relationship with the global temperature.
posted by Oyéah at 3:17 PM on January 29, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bad idea to kill off a major food source of the entire biosphere. Even arctic birds live on them in the season, polar bears who eat the fish who live on them. Catastrophe.
Nope.
Studies seem to show no to minimal effects of eradicating mosquitos. There is some disagreement on the impact in the Arctic, though.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
Nope.
Studies seem to show no to minimal effects of eradicating mosquitos. There is some disagreement on the impact in the Arctic, though.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don’t always advocate for eradicating entire species.
But when I do,
I prefer Mos Quitos.
posted by oulipian at 3:23 PM on January 29, 2016 [63 favorites]
But when I do,
I prefer Mos Quitos.
posted by oulipian at 3:23 PM on January 29, 2016 [63 favorites]
Radiolab, on this topic: KILL 'EM ALL.
Also note the followup article linked on that page, which describes some alternatives to killing the mosquitos which are, to be fair, the vector of parasites and bacteria that actually make us sick. You wouldn't kill a messenger, so why kill the courier?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also note the followup article linked on that page, which describes some alternatives to killing the mosquitos which are, to be fair, the vector of parasites and bacteria that actually make us sick. You wouldn't kill a messenger, so why kill the courier?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
They aren't a source of food for the entire biosphere. I don't even know what that might mean.
posted by cromagnon at 3:29 PM on January 29, 2016
posted by cromagnon at 3:29 PM on January 29, 2016
The law of unintended consequences suggests that no matter how foolproof a plan we have for this, something awful will happen as a result. Maybe another species will get wiped out in the process. Maybe the human population will explode. We could be risking risking damage to or even the collapse of certain ecosystems.
I think the risk is worth it. Slaughter those pests.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think the risk is worth it. Slaughter those pests.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
But for Lounibos, the fact this niche would be filled by another insect is part of the problem. He warns that mosquitoes could be replaced by an insect "equally, or more, undesirable from a public health viewpoint".
Probably giant venomous centipedes.
posted by Splunge at 3:39 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably giant venomous centipedes.
posted by Splunge at 3:39 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wipe out mosquitoes, and you wipe out botflies, too. (which rely on mosquitoes as an egg-carrying vector). Which is a nice bonus.*
*well, you might also have to also wipe out one species of tick, and some muscoid fly species, but... botflies.
posted by Auden at 3:41 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
*well, you might also have to also wipe out one species of tick, and some muscoid fly species, but... botflies.
posted by Auden at 3:41 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Don Blanding said it best...
"There's a law of nature I'd like to veto...
It's the life and love of the (blank) mosquito."
posted by splen at 3:46 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
"There's a law of nature I'd like to veto...
It's the life and love of the (blank) mosquito."
posted by splen at 3:46 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Am I wrong in understanding that it's only certain mosquito species which are dangerous to humans? Couldn't we just wipe them out and leave the world possessed solely of mosquito species which are not dangerous to us? We'd still have the vast majority of mosquitoes, I can't imagine the other species would take long to make up for the "loss", and we'd save untold millions of lives.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Am I wrong in understanding that it's only certain mosquito species which are dangerous to humans?"
You're not wrong that the scope of this proposal, as far as anyone has ever seriously proposed it, has been only specific mosquito species and not "all mosquitoes" -- the BBC article and the title of the post are sort of misleading about this.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're not wrong that the scope of this proposal, as far as anyone has ever seriously proposed it, has been only specific mosquito species and not "all mosquitoes" -- the BBC article and the title of the post are sort of misleading about this.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, were screwing up the planet anway. I say we kill the SOBs.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
And when Winter comes, the gorillas simply freeze to death...
posted by Ragged Richard at 4:08 PM on January 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Ragged Richard at 4:08 PM on January 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
Am I wrong in understanding that it's only certain mosquito species which are dangerous to humans?
The article discusses this. The answer is, no, you're not wrong.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:10 PM on January 29, 2016
The article discusses this. The answer is, no, you're not wrong.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:10 PM on January 29, 2016
The article gives the origin of some species, but doesn't really highlight the fact that the dangerous mosquitos in the Americas are invasive and don't belong here in the first place. Extirpation in this hemisphere is a no-brainer, ecologically.
posted by snofoam at 4:19 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:19 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Until they decide to nuke every square inch of Alaska, there is never any danger of their being too few mosquitoes.
posted by JackFlash at 4:21 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 4:21 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are several species of mosquitoes which have coevolved to be disease vectors. Kill them off and the other 99% of mosquito species will take up the slack of drinking blood and pollination, without malaria getting it's cut.
posted by benzenedream at 4:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benzenedream at 4:22 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's not be hasty. The common mojito is definitely a major food source for me. Especially on Friday afternoons around 5pm.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 4:26 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Hairy Lobster at 4:26 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
In Dallas, my community has been fighting the reactionary..."Let's use city vehicles to drive down the streets at night and spray fucked up chemicals everywhere...because, ya know..mosquitoes." It's not working. I still get mosquito bites, and the neighborhood smells like antifreeze.
posted by Benway at 4:46 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Benway at 4:46 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is a connection with rubber plantations , mosquitos, and gin and tonics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
"Bright Ideas"
posted by hortense at 5:03 PM on January 29, 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
"Bright Ideas"
posted by hortense at 5:03 PM on January 29, 2016
Ice-nine would do the trick.
posted by nikoniko at 5:04 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nikoniko at 5:04 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Am I wrong in understanding that it's only certain mosquito species which are dangerous to humans?"
I think there should be a total and complete shutdown of mosquitoes entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice, our country cannot be the victim of tremendous attacks by insects who believe only sucking blood.
posted by klarck at 5:04 PM on January 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think there should be a total and complete shutdown of mosquitoes entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice, our country cannot be the victim of tremendous attacks by insects who believe only sucking blood.
posted by klarck at 5:04 PM on January 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sounds like a job for Genetic engineering!
posted by blue_beetle at 5:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 5:05 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, mosquitos seem to reproduce pretty fast and we can keep them alive fine in captivity, so we can try it and see if we like it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not working. I still get mosquito bites
It's not perfect largely because there are always puddles and containers protected somewhat from the mist, but trust me when I say you do not want to know what it would be like without those mosquito control trucks.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not perfect largely because there are always puddles and containers protected somewhat from the mist, but trust me when I say you do not want to know what it would be like without those mosquito control trucks.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:07 PM on January 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
So here's my position. Anti tropical disease research should be a major branch of science, on a level with, say, chemistry. There should be Hollywood movies, in the style of Pacific Rim, about heroic and good-looking international aid workers who battle malaria and TB. Actual aid workers should be able to come home and run for Congress on that basis, like the Apollo astronauts. There should be quasi-fascist propaganda posters showing stuff like doctors crushing mosquitos, with captions like, "HE CAN'T DO IT ALONE! BUY ERADICATION BONDS!" You should be unable to buy jam some days because of the anti-malaria effort. Senators should be ending speeches with the slogan "Plasmodium Delenda Est," and kids should be skipping rope to the phrase "Every time a mosquito dies, the world becomes a better place." At that point we would be approximating the level of concern the problem deserves.
posted by officer_fred at 5:10 PM on January 29, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by officer_fred at 5:10 PM on January 29, 2016 [39 favorites]
Officer_Fred, I'm afraid you are being unrealistic about the rope jumping (which, as far as I can tell ended about the same time as the Nixon Administration). The best we can hope for is for jump roping to come back in the form of a video game.
posted by spock at 5:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by spock at 5:16 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just posted this in the Zika thread, too, but there's an interesting and alarming article in the Guardian today with Dr. Peter Hotez (an expert in tropical diseases and the head of the new National School of Tropical Medicine in Houston) in which he predicts that Zika will spread throughout the Carribean within the next few weeks and then the Gulf Coast, including Houston, will be next.
He notes that with regard to Zika there is a confluence of factors that are present in parts of the US that are very conducive to its transmission. The it's well within the A. aegypti mosquito range, lots of niches that are environmentally very hospitable for the mosquito (like abandoned tires, which are basically an ideal mosquito breeding ground) which are also where many people live, other things associated with poverty (less window screening, less air-conditioning, less health care), that it's often not very symptomatic for adults, and so on. The last thing I read about vaccines is at least a year before a research vaccine and much longer than that for mass production -- it looks like there's good reason to believe that Zika could become common in certain areas of the Gulf Coast, very much including Houston. Aside from screening, mosquito control is almost certainly going to be the chief response to this.
Assuming that he's correct that this is possible or likely. I'd guess that the reality will be something between those who think we won't see almost any Zika in the US at all, and Hotez, who is probably exaggerating the threat somewhat in order to light a fire under people and agencies who are inherently sluggish about responding to something like this. In the other thread, someone dismissed this and compared it to the the scare here over Ebola, which I think is a totally inapt comparison. It's totally different.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:19 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
He notes that with regard to Zika there is a confluence of factors that are present in parts of the US that are very conducive to its transmission. The it's well within the A. aegypti mosquito range, lots of niches that are environmentally very hospitable for the mosquito (like abandoned tires, which are basically an ideal mosquito breeding ground) which are also where many people live, other things associated with poverty (less window screening, less air-conditioning, less health care), that it's often not very symptomatic for adults, and so on. The last thing I read about vaccines is at least a year before a research vaccine and much longer than that for mass production -- it looks like there's good reason to believe that Zika could become common in certain areas of the Gulf Coast, very much including Houston. Aside from screening, mosquito control is almost certainly going to be the chief response to this.
Assuming that he's correct that this is possible or likely. I'd guess that the reality will be something between those who think we won't see almost any Zika in the US at all, and Hotez, who is probably exaggerating the threat somewhat in order to light a fire under people and agencies who are inherently sluggish about responding to something like this. In the other thread, someone dismissed this and compared it to the the scare here over Ebola, which I think is a totally inapt comparison. It's totally different.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:19 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been saying for decades that we owe it to our kids and grand kids (I have no kids.) to eradicate the mosquito. Caveat: I live in Minnesota, mosquitoes here are no joke.
When I was in high school, I effort posted a ten page report about Malaria and blood-borne disease and why we had to kill off the mosquito. Why we had an obligation. This was way before West Nile. Before any HIV or Hep stuff. My teacher said, "Well, what will the birds eat?" gave me a C and sent me on my way.
Ms. Lxxxxxx, now that I'm in my 40's I'd like to say to you, "MAYBE ONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER INSECT SPECIES ON THE PLANET. THE ONES WHO DON'T TRANSFER DISEASE."
posted by Sphinx at 5:33 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
When I was in high school, I effort posted a ten page report about Malaria and blood-borne disease and why we had to kill off the mosquito. Why we had an obligation. This was way before West Nile. Before any HIV or Hep stuff. My teacher said, "Well, what will the birds eat?" gave me a C and sent me on my way.
Ms. Lxxxxxx, now that I'm in my 40's I'd like to say to you, "MAYBE ONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER INSECT SPECIES ON THE PLANET. THE ONES WHO DON'T TRANSFER DISEASE."
posted by Sphinx at 5:33 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mosquitoes suck.
Well...yes. As I understand it, that's part of the issue.
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:37 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well...yes. As I understand it, that's part of the issue.
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:37 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if Zika is going to be a real problem long term. The birth defect issue, does that last beyond the initial sickness? Otherwise, it's pretty likely that most people who live in problem areas will just end up catching it during childhood, getting immune from that, and then not being susceptible later on when they could be pregnant. Of course, with people moving around, etc. there will always be a few people who can get it, but not like now.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:49 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:49 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's important to remember when considering eradication of mosquitoes that the DeHavilland Mosquito is one of the good ones and is easily distinguished from harmful types by its size and wooden construction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:01 PM on January 29, 2016 [18 favorites]
This is going to wipe out threats to commerce in the Amazon Basin. Yes the indigenous people. Wipe out those pesky favela folk. Yeah, the cure will prop up some chemical industry, it is all too pat for me. I am going conspiracy nut on this. Lots of creatures live on mosquitoes, it is easy enough to google.
Zika out of Africa, on the heels of ebola. This is the commercialization of bio warfare.
posted by Oyéah at 6:16 PM on January 29, 2016
Zika out of Africa, on the heels of ebola. This is the commercialization of bio warfare.
posted by Oyéah at 6:16 PM on January 29, 2016
Zika out of Africa, on the heels of ebola. This is the commercialization of bio warfare.
Why trivialize a complex and tragic human problem in this way? These kinds of casual conspiracy theory statements make it harder to fight diseases, not easier.
I'm on the side of eradication, mostly on moral grounds but also in small part because I am a person that mosquitoes seem to love, and I'd rather have fewer bites.
There should be quasi-fascist propaganda posters showing stuff like doctors crushing mosquitos, with captions like, "HE CAN'T DO IT ALONE! BUY ERADICATION BONDS!"
I know this was meant to be funny, but I wish we gave public health issues even a tiny fraction of this kind of attention and respect. There's simply no way to do this on the cheap and without resources, but that's the approach we have apparently decided to take.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:29 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
Why trivialize a complex and tragic human problem in this way? These kinds of casual conspiracy theory statements make it harder to fight diseases, not easier.
I'm on the side of eradication, mostly on moral grounds but also in small part because I am a person that mosquitoes seem to love, and I'd rather have fewer bites.
There should be quasi-fascist propaganda posters showing stuff like doctors crushing mosquitos, with captions like, "HE CAN'T DO IT ALONE! BUY ERADICATION BONDS!"
I know this was meant to be funny, but I wish we gave public health issues even a tiny fraction of this kind of attention and respect. There's simply no way to do this on the cheap and without resources, but that's the approach we have apparently decided to take.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:29 PM on January 29, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's not the mosquitos that're the problem. It's the weak-ass bipedal organisms that are pathetically susceptible to so damned many viruses. Get rid of them, and your problem is solved. They're probably easier to fully exterminate than mosquitos, too.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Thanks for your contribution, SkyNet.
posted by No-sword at 7:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by No-sword at 7:06 PM on January 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Humans are weird. Malaria killing half of all the humans who ever lived leaves people ho-hum I'm still annoyed that those mosquiteo control trucks are smelly and loud, but Zika causing microcephaly in newborns causes everyone to freak out take their pregnant women Mad Max Fury Road style to the nearest desert.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:11 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:11 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Get rid of them, and your problem is solved. They're probably easier to fully exterminate than mosquitos, too.
These kinds of flippant statements leave a bad taste in my mouth -- especially coming from people living comfortably in developed nations, who will probably never contract malaria, will probably never lose a loved one to malaria.
Mosquito-borne diseases, especially malaria, are a human tragedy on a vast scale. Maybe the African parents who have lost children don't want their extermination to be the solution. Maybe they want to live, and want their children to live. It's easy to make jokes about just letting people die off (or getting rid of them) when you're not the one that's dying.
Have you ever seen a child with malaria? Do you know anyone who has died from it? Anyone who has lost a child, a parent, a sister?
I'd ask those questions to anyone else in this thread who wants to weigh human lives against mosquitos. It's easy to see it as an abstract thought experiment or a joke, but to billions of people -- tragically, often the poorest people, with unequal access to medical resources due to centuries of oppression and neglect -- it is not a distant issue.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2016 [15 favorites]
These kinds of flippant statements leave a bad taste in my mouth -- especially coming from people living comfortably in developed nations, who will probably never contract malaria, will probably never lose a loved one to malaria.
Mosquito-borne diseases, especially malaria, are a human tragedy on a vast scale. Maybe the African parents who have lost children don't want their extermination to be the solution. Maybe they want to live, and want their children to live. It's easy to make jokes about just letting people die off (or getting rid of them) when you're not the one that's dying.
Have you ever seen a child with malaria? Do you know anyone who has died from it? Anyone who has lost a child, a parent, a sister?
I'd ask those questions to anyone else in this thread who wants to weigh human lives against mosquitos. It's easy to see it as an abstract thought experiment or a joke, but to billions of people -- tragically, often the poorest people, with unequal access to medical resources due to centuries of oppression and neglect -- it is not a distant issue.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2016 [15 favorites]
Well people are absolutely right in pointing out that developed societies lack empathy, etc.
But it is an objective, scientific problem: if you destabilize the ecosystem, there could be a greater catastrophe.
How do you know which? We don't. We need research. Scientists. Engineers. We need critical thinkers. We need knowledge.
What we don't need is appeals to the fact that people in 3rd-world countries are dying a lot. It's true. But that's not an argument. That's anti-technology and anti-science reasoning. It's frankly dangerous.
posted by polymodus at 7:24 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
But it is an objective, scientific problem: if you destabilize the ecosystem, there could be a greater catastrophe.
How do you know which? We don't. We need research. Scientists. Engineers. We need critical thinkers. We need knowledge.
What we don't need is appeals to the fact that people in 3rd-world countries are dying a lot. It's true. But that's not an argument. That's anti-technology and anti-science reasoning. It's frankly dangerous.
posted by polymodus at 7:24 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Did I say what the right choice was? No.
But the fact that people in third world countries are dying a lot from mosquito borne diseases is not irrelevant, and should not be forgotten. They're why we're asking whether we should eradicate mosquitoes in the first place.
That you're accusing me of anti-technology, anti-science, dangerous thinking because I asked people to have empathy for those deaths and to be aware of the inequity--it's quite frankly appalling.
And it's really, really off-target. (It would not be the first time for you.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:35 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
But the fact that people in third world countries are dying a lot from mosquito borne diseases is not irrelevant, and should not be forgotten. They're why we're asking whether we should eradicate mosquitoes in the first place.
That you're accusing me of anti-technology, anti-science, dangerous thinking because I asked people to have empathy for those deaths and to be aware of the inequity--it's quite frankly appalling.
And it's really, really off-target. (It would not be the first time for you.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:35 PM on January 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
No, you made it sound like it was an abstract thought experiment.
I said, no, it's a scientific and engineering problem. And that it would be much more productive to look at it that way (knowledge, dispelling ignorance, etc.). It's not off target at all, and it's inappropriate that you would attempt to allude to other people's past behavior in such a discussion.
posted by polymodus at 7:39 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I said, no, it's a scientific and engineering problem. And that it would be much more productive to look at it that way (knowledge, dispelling ignorance, etc.). It's not off target at all, and it's inappropriate that you would attempt to allude to other people's past behavior in such a discussion.
posted by polymodus at 7:39 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
And you didn't ask people for empathy. I talked about empathy, first.
posted by polymodus at 7:40 PM on January 29, 2016
posted by polymodus at 7:40 PM on January 29, 2016
Does anyone know why the north of Australia has (according to these maps) remained completely risk-free? Is the secret just low population density or something?
posted by No-sword at 7:41 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by No-sword at 7:41 PM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
That you're accusing me of anti-technology, anti-science, dangerous thinking because I asked people to have empathy for those deaths and to be aware of the inequity--it's quite frankly appalling.
I never even did this. I talked about what I talked about, and it was quite specific. I had said nothing about your rhetoric.
posted by polymodus at 7:48 PM on January 29, 2016
I never even did this. I talked about what I talked about, and it was quite specific. I had said nothing about your rhetoric.
posted by polymodus at 7:48 PM on January 29, 2016
They're why we're asking whether we should eradicate mosquitoes in the first place.
I mean, come on. Any epidemiologist knows that mosquitoes are a disease vector. If you're gonna allude to "why" a question/problem/solution is supposed to be important, a clearer account of the causal relations is needed. And to answer that issue, again, scientists, engineers, (plus the BBC article includes philosophers, …, perhaps ethicists) etc.
posted by polymodus at 8:09 PM on January 29, 2016
I mean, come on. Any epidemiologist knows that mosquitoes are a disease vector. If you're gonna allude to "why" a question/problem/solution is supposed to be important, a clearer account of the causal relations is needed. And to answer that issue, again, scientists, engineers, (plus the BBC article includes philosophers, …, perhaps ethicists) etc.
posted by polymodus at 8:09 PM on January 29, 2016
I thought real life eccentric gazillionaire Nathan Myhrvold was going to kill all the mosquitos with lasers? What ever happened to that plan? I loved that plan.
oh you mean this one? well.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 8:21 PM on January 29, 2016
oh you mean this one? well.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 8:21 PM on January 29, 2016
According to Phil Lounibos, an entomologist at Florida University, mosquito eradication "is fraught with undesirable side effects".
I'm impressed that anyone who lives in Florida* would actually be against this proposal.
I'm kidding, sort of, but the mosquitoes really are terrible down there. Although weirdly, growing up in north Florida, home of a million mosquitos, seems to have given me a weird immunity to mosquitos in other parts of the country. Like, I remember spending summers in North Carolina where other people were getting attacked by mosquitos, and I never got a single bite. Maybe just a coincidence, correlation doesn't equal causation, science, etc, etc.
But more seriously:
More than a million people, mostly from poorer nations, die each year from mosquito-borne diseases including malaria, dengue fever and yellow fever.
Considering the fact that we wouldn't have to exterminate all mosquitos, apparently just 6% according to the article, it's hard to imagine a compelling argument why we shouldn't eradicate those particular species considering the death toll of these horrible little blood suckers. I mean, I get the concern about long term environmental effects, but this is a huge, huge problem. And of course, I imagine if those one million people were largely from the US and Western Europe, we probably would have wiped these mosquitos off the map a long time ago.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as Florida University. Maybe they meant University of Florida or Florida State University?
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:50 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm impressed that anyone who lives in Florida* would actually be against this proposal.
I'm kidding, sort of, but the mosquitoes really are terrible down there. Although weirdly, growing up in north Florida, home of a million mosquitos, seems to have given me a weird immunity to mosquitos in other parts of the country. Like, I remember spending summers in North Carolina where other people were getting attacked by mosquitos, and I never got a single bite. Maybe just a coincidence, correlation doesn't equal causation, science, etc, etc.
But more seriously:
More than a million people, mostly from poorer nations, die each year from mosquito-borne diseases including malaria, dengue fever and yellow fever.
Considering the fact that we wouldn't have to exterminate all mosquitos, apparently just 6% according to the article, it's hard to imagine a compelling argument why we shouldn't eradicate those particular species considering the death toll of these horrible little blood suckers. I mean, I get the concern about long term environmental effects, but this is a huge, huge problem. And of course, I imagine if those one million people were largely from the US and Western Europe, we probably would have wiped these mosquitos off the map a long time ago.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as Florida University. Maybe they meant University of Florida or Florida State University?
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:50 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wonder if Zika is going to be a real problem long term. The birth defect issue, does that last beyond the initial sickness?
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this birth defect issue is a serious concern. Yes, fully formed humans seem to have relatively minor reactions, but the microcephaly which seems to be linked to Zika infections in pregnant women appears to be a very serious, and yes, long term, complication.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:55 PM on January 29, 2016
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this birth defect issue is a serious concern. Yes, fully formed humans seem to have relatively minor reactions, but the microcephaly which seems to be linked to Zika infections in pregnant women appears to be a very serious, and yes, long term, complication.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:55 PM on January 29, 2016
It's easy to make jokes about just letting people die off (or getting rid of them) when you're not the one that's dying.
It's all cool, Kutsuwamushi, Thorzdad was calling for the extinction of the entirety of humanity. If I read their comment correctly, I'm guessing they'd actually prefer the human extinction to start from the richest downwards.
posted by ambrosen at 9:20 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's all cool, Kutsuwamushi, Thorzdad was calling for the extinction of the entirety of humanity. If I read their comment correctly, I'm guessing they'd actually prefer the human extinction to start from the richest downwards.
posted by ambrosen at 9:20 PM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Although it's true that the extinction of humans would also serve to eradicate the use of gallows humor ...
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:33 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:33 PM on January 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
most people who live in problem areas will just end up catching it during childhood, getting immune from that
It's my understanding that Zika is related to Dengue Fever, spread by the same mosquito, and no, there's no immunity. You can catch that again and if you get the hemorrhagic version, you might die. A popular actor in Thailand just died from dengue. The Bangkok Post published an article about a new vaccine: CYD-TDV which works against all four strains of dengue, giving you a 60% chance of not coming down with the disease and if infected, symptoms should be much less severe. The vaccine is available in Mexico, Brasil and the Philippines so far.
These are daytime mosquitoes. Sleeping under a mosquito net is a good preventative but it doesn't help when you are out and about during the day. Long sleeves and pants, socks, insect repellent and 100 degree heat.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:31 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's my understanding that Zika is related to Dengue Fever, spread by the same mosquito, and no, there's no immunity. You can catch that again and if you get the hemorrhagic version, you might die. A popular actor in Thailand just died from dengue. The Bangkok Post published an article about a new vaccine: CYD-TDV which works against all four strains of dengue, giving you a 60% chance of not coming down with the disease and if infected, symptoms should be much less severe. The vaccine is available in Mexico, Brasil and the Philippines so far.
These are daytime mosquitoes. Sleeping under a mosquito net is a good preventative but it doesn't help when you are out and about during the day. Long sleeves and pants, socks, insect repellent and 100 degree heat.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:31 PM on January 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Completely drop the back and forth bickering, please, and everyone, let's also discontinue the whole "kill all humans" derail.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:01 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:01 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
No-sword, I think it's just early days. Australians in general tend not to take holidays to the Caribbean or South America (the Caribbean especially is a bugger to get to and we have hot weather and beaches aplenty) and unless there are a bunch of infected humans around the local mozzies probably won't get it. But there are concerns since mosquitos up there likely could transmit it, if it makes it over.
posted by kitten magic at 12:59 AM on January 30, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kitten magic at 12:59 AM on January 30, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am certain someone will drop in to tell me why zika is really a lot more of a concern than Ebola, but as someone who was genuinely dismayed by the way our conciousness and media coverage about Ebola was directly linked to the 2014 elections , then almost completely dropped in discussions thereafter, I am not excited to see this popping up again in what just so happens to be another election year.
When I noticed that aspect after the midterms it felt a bit like being in the twilight zone.
posted by Karaage at 1:50 AM on January 30, 2016
When I noticed that aspect after the midterms it felt a bit like being in the twilight zone.
posted by Karaage at 1:50 AM on January 30, 2016
Well, mosquitos seem to reproduce pretty fast
one female can lay hundreds of eggs, so killing off 92% may not be enough.
posted by Lanark at 2:30 AM on January 30, 2016
one female can lay hundreds of eggs, so killing off 92% may not be enough.
posted by Lanark at 2:30 AM on January 30, 2016
Oyéah: "Fish, bats, frogs, birds, insects say they find mosquitoes delicious and necessary to live at all, well and turtles too. Our exposure to mosquito bites might help keep our immune systems in tone, in tune with what is out there.
Bad idea to kill off a major food source of the entire biosphere. Even arctic birds live on them in the season, polar bears who eat the fish who live on them. Catastrophe. "
Note that proposed efforts aren't to eliminate all mosquitoes; just the specific species that communicate specific diseases. Most species of mosquitoes do not transmit these devastating diseases.
posted by Mitheral at 2:46 AM on January 30, 2016
Bad idea to kill off a major food source of the entire biosphere. Even arctic birds live on them in the season, polar bears who eat the fish who live on them. Catastrophe. "
Note that proposed efforts aren't to eliminate all mosquitoes; just the specific species that communicate specific diseases. Most species of mosquitoes do not transmit these devastating diseases.
posted by Mitheral at 2:46 AM on January 30, 2016
Buried in the article is a mention that the technology for targeted eradication isn't even believed to be feasible. I didn't like that the media failed to underline this point. To their credit, the various interviews were good.
posted by polymodus at 3:12 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 3:12 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks, kitten magic. I was thinking more of malaria and Dengue fever though -- looks like they're already knocking on the door up there and there's certainly a lot of people going back and forth between Australia and SE Asia. What's keeping them out?
posted by No-sword at 3:27 AM on January 30, 2016
posted by No-sword at 3:27 AM on January 30, 2016
Research in 2011 (and probably before) identified mosquito proliferation as a nearly-immediate consequence to rises in land/sea temperature. As I recall that was related to a record mosquito season in 2010.
The conversation at that time focused on the fact that mosquitos are not dangerous in themselves – as annoying as they may be – but rather it's the fact that they carry viruses and bacteria between humans. Basically, mosquitos are a logistics service for viruses. Create more favourable conditions for mosquitos is the same as creating more favourable conditions for viruses. The subsequent problem is that increasing the population of mosquitos linearly results in an exponential increase in threat by viruses – for each mosquito added to the system increases the infectious potential far more (due to network and propagation effects).
We're just now seeing the result of climate gases released over the past 100 years. Similarly, economically, we're just now seeing the effect on human employment of robots released thirty years ago. Point being, systemic changes take time to propagate.
In terms of attacking the mosquitos, the article points out very rightly that in doing that, there is the chance that something more virulent will replace the mosquito. That is by far the greatest danger, and should terminate any discussion about attacking the mosquito. It's very easy to demonise the mosquito, yet, it must be kept in mind that it's not the mosquito causing the problems for humans – it's the viruses. We made the conditions more favourable for the viruses to propagate by making climate more habitable for the mosquito, but in the end, it's humans versus the viruses, and what's been done has been done.
The only rational path forward can be attacking the viruses, which is old science, in the sense that we know how to attack viruses – the initial defence being medicines that prevent their replication, and the long-term defence being the evolution of our own immune system – inoculation. Without a focus on those two factors, one risks a witch hunt of the mosquito, which has a variety of unintended consequences, from the proliferation of something else, to disruption of the ecosystem in untold ways.
It's easy to look at mosquitos and say, "bastards, we're coming for you," yet that doesn't change the fact that the mosquito isn't the problem. For an overreaching yet slightly fitting analogy, it's similar to Donald Trump attacking Muslims and Mexicans for the economic hardships many people face. The ultimate problem is the wholesale devaluation of human capital in the face of technology. That requires the country to look inward at its systems and processes and dismantle entire pieces of the economy and government, only to rebuild them in a way that decreases income inequality. That attacks (very wealthy) entrenched interests, which of course put up an immune response – which is Donald Trump. He doesn't not address the cause of declining American competitiveness, but rather addresses a derivative of the cause, which is the establishment's point that we need less workers. We don't need less workers, we need a different economic model capable of addressing changing requirements of people in the workforce. Trump's racism is not only inhuman and illegal, but also masks the ability of the country to address the actual problem. In that way, not only does Trump embarrass the country, but he is also functionally weakening it each day he receives mainstream attention. Paradoxically, the man's belief and agenda to Save America will become the exact thing that destroys it.
Similarly, we don't have a mosquito problem, we have a virus problem. And similarly with Trump, if we attack the mosquito problem, not only do we not address the virus problem, but we potentially exacerbate it. For, the virus already existed and was already a threat, yet by warming the atmosphere, we have given that threat a superhighway. Walling off suburban homes from urban violence does not diminish violence, rather it only shifts it. Worse, it blocks it from view, so that the violence can grow and changed unchecked. It's the same thing with viruses. The mosquito is just the messenger. The reality is that through modifying the atmosphere, we have exposed ourselves to a while new category of sub-microscopic threats.
I'm not saying we should thank the mosquito or act in ways not to control its impact, but rather we absolutely must focus on the real problem – which is the virus – and not the mosquito.
posted by nickrussell at 3:57 AM on January 30, 2016 [8 favorites]
The conversation at that time focused on the fact that mosquitos are not dangerous in themselves – as annoying as they may be – but rather it's the fact that they carry viruses and bacteria between humans. Basically, mosquitos are a logistics service for viruses. Create more favourable conditions for mosquitos is the same as creating more favourable conditions for viruses. The subsequent problem is that increasing the population of mosquitos linearly results in an exponential increase in threat by viruses – for each mosquito added to the system increases the infectious potential far more (due to network and propagation effects).
We're just now seeing the result of climate gases released over the past 100 years. Similarly, economically, we're just now seeing the effect on human employment of robots released thirty years ago. Point being, systemic changes take time to propagate.
In terms of attacking the mosquitos, the article points out very rightly that in doing that, there is the chance that something more virulent will replace the mosquito. That is by far the greatest danger, and should terminate any discussion about attacking the mosquito. It's very easy to demonise the mosquito, yet, it must be kept in mind that it's not the mosquito causing the problems for humans – it's the viruses. We made the conditions more favourable for the viruses to propagate by making climate more habitable for the mosquito, but in the end, it's humans versus the viruses, and what's been done has been done.
The only rational path forward can be attacking the viruses, which is old science, in the sense that we know how to attack viruses – the initial defence being medicines that prevent their replication, and the long-term defence being the evolution of our own immune system – inoculation. Without a focus on those two factors, one risks a witch hunt of the mosquito, which has a variety of unintended consequences, from the proliferation of something else, to disruption of the ecosystem in untold ways.
It's easy to look at mosquitos and say, "bastards, we're coming for you," yet that doesn't change the fact that the mosquito isn't the problem. For an overreaching yet slightly fitting analogy, it's similar to Donald Trump attacking Muslims and Mexicans for the economic hardships many people face. The ultimate problem is the wholesale devaluation of human capital in the face of technology. That requires the country to look inward at its systems and processes and dismantle entire pieces of the economy and government, only to rebuild them in a way that decreases income inequality. That attacks (very wealthy) entrenched interests, which of course put up an immune response – which is Donald Trump. He doesn't not address the cause of declining American competitiveness, but rather addresses a derivative of the cause, which is the establishment's point that we need less workers. We don't need less workers, we need a different economic model capable of addressing changing requirements of people in the workforce. Trump's racism is not only inhuman and illegal, but also masks the ability of the country to address the actual problem. In that way, not only does Trump embarrass the country, but he is also functionally weakening it each day he receives mainstream attention. Paradoxically, the man's belief and agenda to Save America will become the exact thing that destroys it.
Similarly, we don't have a mosquito problem, we have a virus problem. And similarly with Trump, if we attack the mosquito problem, not only do we not address the virus problem, but we potentially exacerbate it. For, the virus already existed and was already a threat, yet by warming the atmosphere, we have given that threat a superhighway. Walling off suburban homes from urban violence does not diminish violence, rather it only shifts it. Worse, it blocks it from view, so that the violence can grow and changed unchecked. It's the same thing with viruses. The mosquito is just the messenger. The reality is that through modifying the atmosphere, we have exposed ourselves to a while new category of sub-microscopic threats.
I'm not saying we should thank the mosquito or act in ways not to control its impact, but rather we absolutely must focus on the real problem – which is the virus – and not the mosquito.
posted by nickrussell at 3:57 AM on January 30, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm not saying we should thank the mosquito or act in ways not to control its impact, but rather we absolutely must focus on the real problem – which is the virus – and not the mosquito.
I suspect I agree with your underlying point, but I would word it significantly differently. There are three interconnected and inextricably linked issues, as I see it. One is environmental -- we have created environments and social systems that increase contact between billions of people and disease vectors such as mosquitoes, contaminated water, etc. Another is the diseases themselves, whether Zika or dengue or others, which we have largely ignored so as to focus resources on the afflictions of the developed world, both medically and in terms of public health. And the third are the complicated environmental questions of species manipulation, in this case around mosquitoes, which not only we aren't prepared to answer with any scientific clarity, but only seem to matter when the trade-off is in the developing world; we have had no problem with environmental reengineering when it is in the service of lifestyle protection in the developed world.
Focusing on just one of those three doesn't capture the complexity necessary for a better solution, and currently we collectively are largely ignoring the problem rather than even attempting partial solutions.
I am certain someone will drop in to tell me why zika is really a lot more of a concern than Ebola, but as someone who was genuinely dismayed by the way our conciousness and media coverage about Ebola was directly linked to the 2014 elections , then almost completely dropped in discussions thereafter, I am not excited to see this popping up again in what just so happens to be another election year.
I agree totally with your political point, but I'd argue that of the two diseases Zika is much more likely to become endemic in the US and other developed countries, as well as already becoming endemic within the countries where Americans, Canadians, and Europeans go for vacations. That doesn't make it a worse disease or automatically more worthy of a serious response, but it does explain why it will probably get a more comprehensive and well-funded response than Ebola ever did.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:27 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
I suspect I agree with your underlying point, but I would word it significantly differently. There are three interconnected and inextricably linked issues, as I see it. One is environmental -- we have created environments and social systems that increase contact between billions of people and disease vectors such as mosquitoes, contaminated water, etc. Another is the diseases themselves, whether Zika or dengue or others, which we have largely ignored so as to focus resources on the afflictions of the developed world, both medically and in terms of public health. And the third are the complicated environmental questions of species manipulation, in this case around mosquitoes, which not only we aren't prepared to answer with any scientific clarity, but only seem to matter when the trade-off is in the developing world; we have had no problem with environmental reengineering when it is in the service of lifestyle protection in the developed world.
Focusing on just one of those three doesn't capture the complexity necessary for a better solution, and currently we collectively are largely ignoring the problem rather than even attempting partial solutions.
I am certain someone will drop in to tell me why zika is really a lot more of a concern than Ebola, but as someone who was genuinely dismayed by the way our conciousness and media coverage about Ebola was directly linked to the 2014 elections , then almost completely dropped in discussions thereafter, I am not excited to see this popping up again in what just so happens to be another election year.
I agree totally with your political point, but I'd argue that of the two diseases Zika is much more likely to become endemic in the US and other developed countries, as well as already becoming endemic within the countries where Americans, Canadians, and Europeans go for vacations. That doesn't make it a worse disease or automatically more worthy of a serious response, but it does explain why it will probably get a more comprehensive and well-funded response than Ebola ever did.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:27 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
Its not like what we're talking about here is at all unprecedented, these mosquitoes were already eradicated in the Southern United States and Mediterranean Europe - saving lives by the hundreds of millions - through extensive habitat destruction and the spraying of genuinely awful insecticides. We have a pretty decent idea of what the environmental impacts are, and already know that the niche isn't filled by anything nasty much less something that could somehow be worse than the disease transmitting mosquitoes we already have. The only population that will be meaningfully reduced aside from these very specific mosquitoes will be dead children, who are currently dying by the millions, I think we could use less of them too.
We are better than this, God I hope we're better than this.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:46 AM on January 30, 2016 [11 favorites]
phooky: "Seriously, you want mosquitoes, make an offshore Culicidae Park or something. Fuck mosquitoes. The ecosystem will recover. Life, uh, finds a way."Thankfully we're not talking about the elimination of mosquitoes generally, just the few with malaria. However, to have an offshore Plasmodium park we couldn't just dump a whole bunch of malaria carrying mosquitoes onto an island and call it good, there are no animal reservoirs for Plasmodium malariae. To keep Plasmodium malariae alive in a park, we would need to continuously feed it the human infants that are necessary for its ecological maintenance. To live it must consume us at our most vulnerable and, now that we are increasingly capable of eradicating it, to continue to live it would have to also consume any pretense we might have of a sense of universally shared humanity. Feeding malaria human infants is what we are currently doing, and that is the dynamic that the eager génocidaires in this thread and elsewhere are really talking about preserving.
"Science writer David Quammen has argued that mosquitoes have limited the destructive impact of humanity on nature. "Mosquitoes make tropical rainforests, for humans, virtually uninhabitable," he said.Genocide, the racialized murder by the millions through intentional inaction that he is suggesting, is unspeakable. Letting the holocaust of malaria continue to maintain the western lifestyle and rosy imagining of ecology, even if the logistics of that made any fucking sense - and they don't, is an intention so utterly horrific I have no idea how to respond. I mean we could certainly talk about how reducing malaria and its attendant disability as well as childhood mortality empowers women, lifts up societies, raises incomes, reduces family size, and in the end reduces ecological impacts in ecologically vulnerable areas - but that would seem to justify the murder of children by the millions through reckless inaction as simply impractical rather than what it really is, or at least leave it unacknowledged. Fuck that, fuck that so hard.
Rainforests, home to a large share of our total plant and animal species, are under serious threat from man-made destruction. "Nothing has done more to delay this catastrophe over the past 10,000 years, than the mosquito," Quammen said."
We are better than this, God I hope we're better than this.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:46 AM on January 30, 2016 [11 favorites]
"I am certain someone will drop in to tell me why zika is really a lot more of a concern than Ebola..."
Just think about the differences between a) a disease that is transmitted via direct contact with infected bodily fluids, symptomatic within days, and about 50% fatal; as compared to b) a disease that is transmitted by mosquito, not symptomatic or only mildly symptomatic in most people. With a modern health care infrastructure and quarantine controls, Ebola can be relatively easily contained, as most informed people knew and history proved.
But a disease without a vaccine that isn't really symptomatic and is transmitted via mosquitoes is much more difficult to control, especially once it has a reservoir of infected people in a region.
Basically, there are two ways to control this until a vaccine is available -- keeping the rate of infection zero or relatively low in a region so that there isn't a reservoir of the disease, and controlling the mosquito population. For example, malaria is a parasitic protozoan infection and for which there is no vaccine. In much of the world where it was not already endemic, this has actually worked pretty well to control the spread of malaria in the last fifty years. But it's a well-known, fairly symptomatic, and pretty severe disease, so epidemiologists and public health personnel are quite aware of this in the regions where it might spread and so they do the various things to keep it from becoming endemic. With zika, which usually has mild or no symptoms, it's a lot easier to imagine that it could relatively quickly infect quite a few people -- enough to establish a viable reservoir -- in a region before health officials put together and enact a coordinated plan to prevent exactly such a thing from happening. (Dengue fever is similar in these respects, and it's also been spreading for decades and has shown up increasingly along the US gulf coast in the last few years.)
The real problem with Zika, in my opinion, is the fact that it's usually mild or asymptomatic but (apparently, possibly) causes microcephaly in fetuses. Without the latter, it's not very alarming and would probably spread throughout these regions until a vaccine is developed. With the latter, it's very alarming in that one respect -- a respect that's distant in time from the transmission of the disease and whatever symptoms the mother would have. Also, and more importantly, it looks like it's already become endemic in Brazil and the conditions for its spread there are the same throughout the Amazon and up through Central America -- meaning that there's going to be a larger reservoir of infection in equatorial Americas until a vaccine is developed. And there's a lot more travel through this region and into the US than movement out of the areas where Ebola was/is.
That doesn't mean that there necessarily will be widespread cases of Zika fever in US gulf coast. Yeah, it seems to me that Hotez must be correct that it will spread throughout the more impoverished parts of the Caribbean. And it's going to move up through Central America, surely. But if American medical providers and public health officials stay on top of this, they could certainly manage to keep any reservoir developing.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:03 AM on January 30, 2016 [6 favorites]
Just think about the differences between a) a disease that is transmitted via direct contact with infected bodily fluids, symptomatic within days, and about 50% fatal; as compared to b) a disease that is transmitted by mosquito, not symptomatic or only mildly symptomatic in most people. With a modern health care infrastructure and quarantine controls, Ebola can be relatively easily contained, as most informed people knew and history proved.
But a disease without a vaccine that isn't really symptomatic and is transmitted via mosquitoes is much more difficult to control, especially once it has a reservoir of infected people in a region.
Basically, there are two ways to control this until a vaccine is available -- keeping the rate of infection zero or relatively low in a region so that there isn't a reservoir of the disease, and controlling the mosquito population. For example, malaria is a parasitic protozoan infection and for which there is no vaccine. In much of the world where it was not already endemic, this has actually worked pretty well to control the spread of malaria in the last fifty years. But it's a well-known, fairly symptomatic, and pretty severe disease, so epidemiologists and public health personnel are quite aware of this in the regions where it might spread and so they do the various things to keep it from becoming endemic. With zika, which usually has mild or no symptoms, it's a lot easier to imagine that it could relatively quickly infect quite a few people -- enough to establish a viable reservoir -- in a region before health officials put together and enact a coordinated plan to prevent exactly such a thing from happening. (Dengue fever is similar in these respects, and it's also been spreading for decades and has shown up increasingly along the US gulf coast in the last few years.)
The real problem with Zika, in my opinion, is the fact that it's usually mild or asymptomatic but (apparently, possibly) causes microcephaly in fetuses. Without the latter, it's not very alarming and would probably spread throughout these regions until a vaccine is developed. With the latter, it's very alarming in that one respect -- a respect that's distant in time from the transmission of the disease and whatever symptoms the mother would have. Also, and more importantly, it looks like it's already become endemic in Brazil and the conditions for its spread there are the same throughout the Amazon and up through Central America -- meaning that there's going to be a larger reservoir of infection in equatorial Americas until a vaccine is developed. And there's a lot more travel through this region and into the US than movement out of the areas where Ebola was/is.
That doesn't mean that there necessarily will be widespread cases of Zika fever in US gulf coast. Yeah, it seems to me that Hotez must be correct that it will spread throughout the more impoverished parts of the Caribbean. And it's going to move up through Central America, surely. But if American medical providers and public health officials stay on top of this, they could certainly manage to keep any reservoir developing.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:03 AM on January 30, 2016 [6 favorites]
Buried in the article is a mention that the technology for targeted eradication isn't even believed to be feasible.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they should, they didn't stop to think if they could.
posted by wabbittwax at 5:08 AM on January 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they should, they didn't stop to think if they could.
posted by wabbittwax at 5:08 AM on January 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Similarly, we don't have a mosquito problem, we have a virus problem."
I think you're quite wrong about this. The best example of how wrong you are is malaria. It's caused by a number of species of parasitic protozoa in the genus Plasmodium. And it's proven very, very difficult to attack directly.
And it's not just because it's not a virus -- there are a lot of viruses for which we've not been able to create an effective vaccine. HIV is a prime example. If the primary focus had been on the pathogen and not on the transmission vector -- in either of the examples of malaria or HIV -- then ... well.
The simple truth is that it's almost always the case that limiting the disease vector is the single most important thing you can do. Even when you have a vaccine -- but it's absolutely true when you don't. And we don't yet have a vaccine for a number of these mosquito-borne diseases and may never have a vaccine for some of them.
Would you say that with cholera we have a "bacteria problem" or a "public sanitation problem"? I could find more examples like this all day.
And, anyway, vaccines and acquired immunity are really just another way of limiting the disease vector.
Attacking the pathogen directly with drugs is something we do frequently only with some bacterial infections with antibiotics, and (usually) less effectively with some parasitic infections, and (usually) much, much less effectively with viral infections and antivirals. Declaring war on the pathogen itself is about the most difficult route to take to fight an infectious disease; helping individual immune systems fight these pathogens ultimately only controls the disease by way of greatly reducing its reservoir and disrupting its transmission†, which is what herd immunity is. When this very effective means of disrupting transmission isn't available, then you have to find other ways to accomplish the same thing. And, furthermore, this is especially true and basically low-hanging fruit (arguably, in some cases) when the vector is a third agent -- not the infected person, but an insect or contaminated food/water or the like.
† You can more understand why this is true when you think about the diseases that we haven't really been able to control very well via vaccines, like the flu. It's because they mutate (or, in other cases, the vaccine is only partly and temporarily effective) and, especially, because there's a huge reservoir of infection from which new mutated versions will keep originating. We basically control the transmission of the flu almost not at all -- symptomatic people are fairly ambulatory and they continue to spread the disease and so the mass of extent infection is enormous relative to the number of strains for which we have a vaccine at any given time. And the other obvious example is just bacterial infections and antibiotics. Attacking the pathogens directly with antibiotics is proving to be not a viable long-term solution to the problem, because they evolve faster than we can discover new effective antibiotics. What's even more important in a hospital than having an effective antibiotic available? Sterilization and hand hygiene, because that's disrupting the vector.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:11 AM on January 30, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think you're quite wrong about this. The best example of how wrong you are is malaria. It's caused by a number of species of parasitic protozoa in the genus Plasmodium. And it's proven very, very difficult to attack directly.
And it's not just because it's not a virus -- there are a lot of viruses for which we've not been able to create an effective vaccine. HIV is a prime example. If the primary focus had been on the pathogen and not on the transmission vector -- in either of the examples of malaria or HIV -- then ... well.
The simple truth is that it's almost always the case that limiting the disease vector is the single most important thing you can do. Even when you have a vaccine -- but it's absolutely true when you don't. And we don't yet have a vaccine for a number of these mosquito-borne diseases and may never have a vaccine for some of them.
Would you say that with cholera we have a "bacteria problem" or a "public sanitation problem"? I could find more examples like this all day.
And, anyway, vaccines and acquired immunity are really just another way of limiting the disease vector.
Attacking the pathogen directly with drugs is something we do frequently only with some bacterial infections with antibiotics, and (usually) less effectively with some parasitic infections, and (usually) much, much less effectively with viral infections and antivirals. Declaring war on the pathogen itself is about the most difficult route to take to fight an infectious disease; helping individual immune systems fight these pathogens ultimately only controls the disease by way of greatly reducing its reservoir and disrupting its transmission†, which is what herd immunity is. When this very effective means of disrupting transmission isn't available, then you have to find other ways to accomplish the same thing. And, furthermore, this is especially true and basically low-hanging fruit (arguably, in some cases) when the vector is a third agent -- not the infected person, but an insect or contaminated food/water or the like.
† You can more understand why this is true when you think about the diseases that we haven't really been able to control very well via vaccines, like the flu. It's because they mutate (or, in other cases, the vaccine is only partly and temporarily effective) and, especially, because there's a huge reservoir of infection from which new mutated versions will keep originating. We basically control the transmission of the flu almost not at all -- symptomatic people are fairly ambulatory and they continue to spread the disease and so the mass of extent infection is enormous relative to the number of strains for which we have a vaccine at any given time. And the other obvious example is just bacterial infections and antibiotics. Attacking the pathogens directly with antibiotics is proving to be not a viable long-term solution to the problem, because they evolve faster than we can discover new effective antibiotics. What's even more important in a hospital than having an effective antibiotic available? Sterilization and hand hygiene, because that's disrupting the vector.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:11 AM on January 30, 2016 [15 favorites]
As a Minnesotan, I am not sure how I feel about this talk of eradicating our state bird.
posted by maxsparber at 6:14 AM on January 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 6:14 AM on January 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have my intro biology students read this article every semester: Three Promising Vaccine Strategies Against Malaria. Using DDT to eradicate malaria from the southeastern US came close to causing the extinction of, among others, the American alligator and the bald eagle. And of course all of us in the next generations received healthy doses of DDT in our breast milk as nursing infants. I am grateful that, unlike my grandmother who grew up in rural south Georgia, I did not get malaria every summer as a child, but I also recognize the sacrifices and damage done in the process. I think ideas like vaccinating the mosquitos against malaria are fascinating and much more worth talking about than trying to balance ecological disaster while eliminating a species of mosquito when what we really want to fight are viruses (dengue, zika) and apicomplexans (malaria) that are transmitted by mosquitos.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:32 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 6:32 AM on January 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
"But for Lounibos, the fact this niche would be filled by another insect is part of the problem. He warns that mosquitoes could be replaced by an insect "equally, or more, undesirable from a public health viewpoint". Its replacement could even conceivably spread diseases further and faster than mosquitoes today."I hope this dude has been seriously misquoted because this is a horrifyingly idiotic and fearmongering thing for a professional entomologist to say. Particularly in the context of a public health discussion, this is way beyond embarrassing.
Not only does it make no fucking sense that there would be some magic new insect that simultaneously causes blood to blood contact, that no one has ever thought to study, that fits neatly into the hyperspecific niche of disease transmitting mosquitoes better than non-disease transmitting mosquitoes, and that already has human adapted diseases capable of doing anything like the damage malaria is, but we have extensive experience eradicating disease transmitting mosquitoes from environments like the Southern US and Southern Europe. Nothing remotely resembling this pants on head crazy scenario has ever happened. Scientifically, this is an LHC will end the universe level of concern trolling, but the damage it is capable of doing is so much deeper.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:42 AM on January 30, 2016 [8 favorites]
Using DDT to eradicate malaria from the southeastern US came close to causing the extinction of, among others, the American alligator and the bald eagle. And of course all of us in the next generations received healthy doses of DDT in our breast milk as nursing infants. I am grateful that, unlike my grandmother who grew up in rural south Georgia, I did not get malaria every summer as a child, but I also recognize the sacrifices and damage done in the process.
It's worth noting that the US malaria eradication program not only relied on extensive use of DDT, but also involved a huge investment in public health infrastructure and control, from window screens to storm drainage to county health inspectors. It's not just the DDT that would be controversial today -- wetland drainage and fill is no longer seen as an unmitigated good, for example, and politically people no longer seem comfortable with empowering government outreach programs to tell private landowners how to manage their properties or parents how to treat their children's health.
I wonder to what extent we will allow diseases like Zika, dengue, and malaria to spread in the US before we return to the aggressive and well-funded public health programs of the early twentieth century. The softer and less intrusive approaches of vaccines, biological controls, and genetic tweaking of vectors are all promising, but will need to be coupled with old-school public health approaches if one is serious about controlling these diseases.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:28 AM on January 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's worth noting that the US malaria eradication program not only relied on extensive use of DDT, but also involved a huge investment in public health infrastructure and control, from window screens to storm drainage to county health inspectors. It's not just the DDT that would be controversial today -- wetland drainage and fill is no longer seen as an unmitigated good, for example, and politically people no longer seem comfortable with empowering government outreach programs to tell private landowners how to manage their properties or parents how to treat their children's health.
I wonder to what extent we will allow diseases like Zika, dengue, and malaria to spread in the US before we return to the aggressive and well-funded public health programs of the early twentieth century. The softer and less intrusive approaches of vaccines, biological controls, and genetic tweaking of vectors are all promising, but will need to be coupled with old-school public health approaches if one is serious about controlling these diseases.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:28 AM on January 30, 2016 [9 favorites]
In 1907 my grandfather discovered that relapsing fever was carried by body lice. (It can also be carried by ticks). While antibiotics provide effective treatment, there is still no effective vaccine for .this widespread disease. The notion that a vaccine can just be whipped up on demand for Zika seems optimistic to me.
posted by Rumple at 9:21 AM on January 30, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 9:21 AM on January 30, 2016 [2 favorites]
One idea I heard (I think on the Radiolab podcast) was to exterminate a population of mosquitos, not permanently, but just long enough such that the human carriers of the diseases recover (or die, I guess). Then the mosquitos come back, but they have no human carriers to pick up the disease from. Makes sense to me.
So what about that?
posted by panama joe at 10:11 AM on January 30, 2016
So what about that?
posted by panama joe at 10:11 AM on January 30, 2016
The notion that a vaccine can just be whipped up on demand for Zika seems optimistic to me.
Not to mention that Zika is still only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mosquito-borne illnesses wreaking havoc on humanity. Malaria and dengue fever have been on our radar for much, much longer, and a million people a year are still dying.
We may not have the perfect way to eradicate the mosquito yet, and I hope we come up with something that doesn't involve bathing entire countries in heavy duty pesticides, because that could cause a lot more long term problems than it solves. But I still think we have much better odds of finding a way to wipe these 100 species of mosquito off the map than we do of finding vaccines for these very different diseases, not to mention the future diseases that I'm sure will one day be transmitted by mosquitos.
posted by litera scripta manet at 10:12 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that Zika is still only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mosquito-borne illnesses wreaking havoc on humanity. Malaria and dengue fever have been on our radar for much, much longer, and a million people a year are still dying.
We may not have the perfect way to eradicate the mosquito yet, and I hope we come up with something that doesn't involve bathing entire countries in heavy duty pesticides, because that could cause a lot more long term problems than it solves. But I still think we have much better odds of finding a way to wipe these 100 species of mosquito off the map than we do of finding vaccines for these very different diseases, not to mention the future diseases that I'm sure will one day be transmitted by mosquitos.
posted by litera scripta manet at 10:12 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
A shorter explanation as to why Zika is much more frightening than ebola:
Ebola is spread through humans (anthroponotic) and its symptoms easy to detect - so you can effectively find, isolate and treat carriers.
The world was poorly prepared and slow to react, and yet we managed to squash it and prevent it spreading past somewhat limited areas in a small number of countries. Next time we'll be much better prepared and probably do at least as good a job if not better.
Zika is spread through animals (zoonotic) and the immediate symptoms are often mild or non-existent - the terrible consequences are only apparent much later after the damage has been done to you and other families in your area.
It really isn't clear what can be done, now, today - eradicating the mosquito, if we decided it was desirable and morally acceptable, would probably take a generation to accomplish. "Stop having children" isn't going to work out as a long-term strategy, is it?
---
The whole idea of a disease that causes microcephaly in babies is demonically horrible, like some dystopian SF plot, and I'm sympathetic to people who argue that this is caused directly by some human agency, even though I don't agree.
But I do agree that "this sort of thing" is an inevitable consequence of climate change and, to a lesser extent, of globalization - that we "did this to ourselves".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:49 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ebola is spread through humans (anthroponotic) and its symptoms easy to detect - so you can effectively find, isolate and treat carriers.
The world was poorly prepared and slow to react, and yet we managed to squash it and prevent it spreading past somewhat limited areas in a small number of countries. Next time we'll be much better prepared and probably do at least as good a job if not better.
Zika is spread through animals (zoonotic) and the immediate symptoms are often mild or non-existent - the terrible consequences are only apparent much later after the damage has been done to you and other families in your area.
It really isn't clear what can be done, now, today - eradicating the mosquito, if we decided it was desirable and morally acceptable, would probably take a generation to accomplish. "Stop having children" isn't going to work out as a long-term strategy, is it?
---
The whole idea of a disease that causes microcephaly in babies is demonically horrible, like some dystopian SF plot, and I'm sympathetic to people who argue that this is caused directly by some human agency, even though I don't agree.
But I do agree that "this sort of thing" is an inevitable consequence of climate change and, to a lesser extent, of globalization - that we "did this to ourselves".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:49 AM on January 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think ideas like vaccinating the mosquitos against malaria are fascinating and much more worth talking about than trying to balance ecological disaster while eliminating a species of mosquito when what we really want to fight are viruses (dengue, zika) and apicomplexans (malaria) that are transmitted by mosquitos.
I think risk analysis of this sort is completely obvious and intuitive to systems thinkers - those trained in math, science, engineering. Your sentence alone entails a piece of probabilistic logic, as well as reference to complexity of ecological interactions. This is material that takes people years to learn well. It's just that when it is said it in a few lines, a lot of times other people may not be aware of all the stuff going on underneath the terms being used; all that context gets missed.
posted by polymodus at 11:41 AM on January 30, 2016
I think risk analysis of this sort is completely obvious and intuitive to systems thinkers - those trained in math, science, engineering. Your sentence alone entails a piece of probabilistic logic, as well as reference to complexity of ecological interactions. This is material that takes people years to learn well. It's just that when it is said it in a few lines, a lot of times other people may not be aware of all the stuff going on underneath the terms being used; all that context gets missed.
posted by polymodus at 11:41 AM on January 30, 2016
There may very well be unanticipated results from eradicating skeeters, or at least the malarial ones. Given the blight of malaria, Zika, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, dengue, etc., it seems a reasonable risk. Plus, they like me a lot and I am allergic to them. Best part of winter in Maine is no mosquitoes.
posted by theora55 at 11:47 AM on January 30, 2016
posted by theora55 at 11:47 AM on January 30, 2016
I have my intro biology students read this article every semester: Three Promising Vaccine Strategies Against Malaria.
Do you have them read all the previous articles with the same title from the last 30 years?
posted by benzenedream at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2016
Do you have them read all the previous articles with the same title from the last 30 years?
posted by benzenedream at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2016
One of the vaccines in the article I linked to above just finished Phase III trials. The results were not earth shattering, but we definitely have another tool to use to prevent malaria that we didn't have before. The WHO is cautiously optimistic.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:05 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by hydropsyche at 3:05 PM on February 2, 2016
And also, as far as I know, the "vaccinate the mosquitos by vaccinating people" approach is novel to the 21st century. So, no, this is not just like every other article written about malaria vaccination, and no, I am not misinformed or duping my students.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:26 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by hydropsyche at 3:26 PM on February 2, 2016
« Older The Makers of Oban | ‘Every single game now I go out to play for her’ Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Let's find out!
posted by FallowKing at 1:57 PM on January 29, 2016 [44 favorites]