
Brazil declares emergency after 2,400 babies are born with brain damage - igonvalue
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/12/23/brazil-declares-emergency-after-2400-babies-are-born-with-brain-damage-possibly-due-to-mosquito-borne-virus/
======
danieltillett
The sooner we get serious and start to deal with mosquitos the better. We
already know what needs to be done [1], now all we need to do is get on with.
How many millions of people have to die before we solve the problem of
mosquito borne disease once and for all. Are we really going to sit around for
decades debating if we should use this technology or not?

Edit. For those who want to understand more about this gene driver approach
(it is pretty complex and amazing genetics) this review is the best I have
been able to find [2].

1\.
[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.343...](http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3439.html)

2\. [http://longnow.org/revive/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Alphey-...](http://longnow.org/revive/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Alphey-AnnRevEnt-2014-genetic-control-of-mosquitoes-
copy.pdf)

~~~
mitchtbaum
Focusing on practical approaches seems to yield most beneficial results. I
have had very good experiences in tropical climates with window screening,
mosquito nets, bio-compatible repellents, traps, zappers, and would like to
find more good tools.

~~~
danieltillett
Not to be harsh did you read the article I linked to? Basically it shows us
how we can wipe out all mosquitos for good without any pesticides or on going
costs (it is a one-and-done approach). A world with no mosquito borne disease
sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

To head off the ecological discussion about using this technology, mosquitos
that carry human disease play no important ecological role and if every single
one disappeared tomorrow the only consequence would be millions of people
would stop dying. Over 700 million people a year get a mosquito borne disease
and over a million die [1]. To stop this I would gladly sacrifice every
mosquito.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-
borne_disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito-borne_disease)

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html)

 _Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a
missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other
organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to
the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be
to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven
Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal._

~~~
danieltillett
The collateral damage they are talking about here is avoided human misery and
death. This is one sort of collateral damage we can happily live with.

~~~
bluejekyll
I think they mean something more along the lines of Dragonflies. They love to
eat mosquitoes and their larvae.

Not that we shouldn't do it, I'm sure they can live off knats just as easily.

~~~
danieltillett
I am pretty sure they were talking about people. From the Nature article

 _" The ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have
more people. That's the consequence," says Strickman._

~~~
rewqfdsa
There's a certain strain of environmentalist that sees deindustrialization,
technological regression, and human population decline as the solution to the
world's problem. This perspective misses the mark, I think.

~~~
adrianN
Human population decline would solve a lot of our environmental problems and
is not necessarily tied to technological regression. In many developed
countries it happens by itself and it could rather easily be helped along with
some financial incentives, say, a tax on children.

~~~
rewqfdsa
The last thing we need is a tax on children in societies with sub-replacement
fertility. A world without growth is a terrible place. (Before you object:
yes, economic growth isn't the same as population growth. But to get economic
growth with a declining population, you need productivity to grow faster than
the population declines, and we're already having trouble keeping productivity
growth up.)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-
a-world-without-growth.html)

~~~
psykovsky
why does productivity need to go up if the population is declining? what about
the unemployed?

------
Cieplak
Maybe it's time to deploy some DDT...

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/silent_spring_turns_50_biographer_william_souder_clears_up_myths_about_rachel_carson_.html)

 _Rachel Carson never called for the banning of pesticides. She made this
clear in every public pronouncement, repeated it in an hourlong television
documentary about Silent Spring, and even testified to that effect before the
U.S. Senate. Carson never denied that there were beneficial uses of
pesticides, notably in combatting human diseases transmitted by insects, where
she said they had not only been proven effective but were morally
“necessary.”_

~~~
Alex3917
> Rachel Carson never called for the banning of pesticides.

It never has been banned for combatting human disease, so I don't see your
point. (Except in a few places like the U.S. where several species were going
extinct from extreme overuse.)

~~~
Cieplak
The italics indicate that I was quoting the article. The words you are quoting
as mine are actually taken from the article I linked to.

DDT is so effective because it is persistent, unlike pyrethrins which degrade
rapidly and need to be frequently resprayed. As a result, it has significant
environment side effects and finds its way into the food chain. My only point
was that in this case, DDT might be the lesser of two evils.

------
fiatjaf
Brazil is fighting the dengue fever for 20 years now. More than a million
people get the disease each year. Every year the public policy is the same:
send agents to enter the houses and search for still water. When the same
measure fails for 20 years, shouldn't they be thinking of an alternative?

~~~
bcook
This is either the most heartless post I have ever seen on HN, or I am unaware
of some great wrong Brazil must be responsible for. Why the negativity toward
Brazil?

Edit: Parent has been edited.

~~~
fiatjaf
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be heartless. I'll edit the comment.

------
rafael92
Brazilian here. Our country is broken, unemployment has never been greater and
we have a corrupt government that steals all taxes we pay. Hospitals of Rio de
Janeiro and other cities are closed for lack of gloves and masks for the
doctors. The situation is really bad here. Our country is great and our people
work harder, if the government stop stealing we would not have those problems.
The largest company in the country lost R$ 161 billions because of government
Dilma Rousseff, government has disapproval of more than 80% of the population
and won the election inventing a war between the rich and the poor. I do not
know what will happen to children who are with dengue or zika because we dont
have hospitals running. The people who were working combating mosquitoes in
homes are on strike because they did not received their salaries. Worst of all
is that the media does not want to show what is happening here. Excuse my bad
english.

~~~
whatever_dude
Brazilian here.

The situation has always been dire. We're just more aware of it now.

In fact I'd argue that it has been much worse in some sectors (remember hyper
inflation? That was just less than 30 years ago).

The problem now is the growing pains and the polarization of opinion we're
creating. We risk becoming a nation of black-and-white issues like, erm, the
US.

------
akiselev
Are there other examples of nations declaring a sudden state of emergency over
infectious diseases that pop up like this? There's obviously Ebola, SARS, and
MERS but those were all highly infectious and had effects that were nowhere
near as subtle as birth and developmental complications (which isn't saying
much considering how long tobacco and alcohol's effects were missed/ignored).
The CDC, WHO, and many other organizations do a great job of watching out for
public health and are shining examples of what societies can achieve, up there
with our space programs, but how many such incidents are happening in poorer
parts of the world without such infrastructuree? How many are a hop, skip, and
an airline ticket away from jumping to the developed world?

 _》 Until a few years ago, human infections with the virus were almost unheard
of. Then, for reasons scientists can 't explain but think may have to do with
the complicated effects of climate change, it began to pop up in far-flung
parts of the world._

Ugh, what? This offhand cmoment seems like nonsense meant to make the article
more interesting and relevant. I have no doubt that, through some complicated
and convoluted path, climate change can tip the scales jn favor of some virus
or even an infectious variant, but this is too interesting and sensationalist
a statement to leave unqualified.

~~~
mbil
The abstract of this article from 1996 sheds some light:

"The incidence of mosquito-borne diseases, including malaria, dengue, and
viral encephalitides, are among those diseases most sensitive to climate.
Climate change would directly affect disease transmission by shifting the
vector's geographic range and increasing reproductive and biting rates and by
shortening the pathogen incubation period."

[http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=39...](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=394508&resultclick=1)

------
mixmastamyk
This isn't the first dangerous disease spread by mosquitos, and may not be the
last. Not to mention how incredibly annoying they are in general.

I've been to Brazil a number of times, and the thing I could never understand
is why, in a tropical country knee-deep in hungry disease causing mosquitos,
is there not a single screen on any of the windows there? Big mistake, they're
not expensive. They are cheaper and safer than rubbing chemicals into your
skin every day.

Here we have screens even in the desert where there are few mosquitos, they
still keep out flies and moths, etc.

~~~
PerfectElement
When I lived in Brazil, we had window screens, but it was on an affluent area
in the coast of Rio. I'm not sure it made things that much better though. You
need a lot of discipline to keep those screens shut all the time when you live
in a tropical country and go outside all the time.

We just learned that during the summer, around 7pm, it was time to close doors
and windows and turn the A/C on.

~~~
robk
In England at least you can't easily find them and even if you could your
local council would likely not approve the planning permission to install
them.

~~~
jzwinck
In England you don't have malaria or dengue.

But if you did the council would forbid you from doing anything about it,
because hey, mosquito borne disease is historic.

------
fgp
I'm yet to see good major news about Brazil this year. So far it's been
microcephaly, the economy flirting with depression, corruption scandals and a
political crisis. I wonder how are we going to cope with hosting the olympics
amid all that

~~~
benologist
The corruption scandals are pretty great news, in that they're being uncovered
and prosecuted.

~~~
fgp
What is great news is that they are being prosecuted, but the fact that those
scandals happen at all is sad.

I do get your point though, those kinds of scandals have probably been
happening for a long time so it is good to finally have some of them
uncovered.

------
dovereconomics
Until last week, there was a popular conspirancy linking these increasing
cases of brain damage to vaccines.

------
Grazester
This is worrisome living a stone throw away from South America. Last year was
the summer of Chikungunya for us. It would only be a matter of time before
this disease moves further north to us.

------
darksim905
Why does the United States not have issues like these? Or rather, just
mosquitoes in some areas in general?

------
rdl
I hope we can find a better solution, but if not: sorry birds, DDT works.

------
jiggaboo
How are blacks affected?

------
cromwellian
Tit-for-tat?

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27844-modified-
mosqui...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27844-modified-mosquitoes-
begin-blitz-on-dengue-in-brazilian-city/)

We release GM mosquitoes that sabotage development of mosquito newborn, and
they transmit virus which sabotages ours?

~~~
cromwellian
It's an interesting coincidence, not a serious suggestion for those who are
downvoting.

------
tosseraccount
"may be the cause"

"may want to hold off"

"may have to do with the complicated effects ..."

They need some definitive answers.

The incidence of microcephaly is 1.02 per 10,000 births in the UK 2002 for
microcephaly (University of Ulster, 2003). [ source :
[http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/m/microcephaly/prevalence.htm](http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/m/microcephaly/prevalence.htm)
]

Birth rate in Brazil is 14.5 per 1000
births.([https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html))

Population of Brazil is 190,000,000. They're claiming 2400 cases in this
emergency.

Do the math. (as child threader indicates, it is high)

Finding Zika virus a small number of cases is not a clear answer.

~~~
mikeyouse
You're comparing the number across births in the UK to the number across the
total population of Brazil.. There aren't 190M births in Brazil every year but
closer to 2.7M (birth rate of ~14/1,000) -- only counting the known cases of
microencephaly yields an occurrence of 89/100,000 or about 90x as frequent as
in the UK. Seems pretty substantial, no?

