Over here most of my generation (the Baby Boom) has the scar from the smallpox immunization. We all got it in the 1st grade but now smallpox has been eliminated except for stores kept for research.
To Cull or not to cull.
- Thread starter hog
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Over here most of my generation (the Baby Boom) has the scar from the smallpox immunization. We all got it in the 1st grade but now smallpox has been eliminated except for stores kept for research.
Its been around for many years santaman, but its only 80% effective for those given, I'd had the jab and still got TB.
Don't know, fact is TB was all but wiped out in the UK but is on the increase again. We have free movement of labour in Europe and TB is endemic in some of the old Russian states and parts of Asia so (and in no way a racist comment) its on the up in the UK as more and more economic migrants come over. Another issue is that in these countries the medication to treat is often unavailable or to expense for people to finish the full course (specialist meds you have to take for at least six months) and this partial treatment is leading to strains of TB resistant to current medications. Go back 100 years and TB killed millions all over the world including the States. https://secure3.convio.net/ala/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=5667
Yeah It was a problem alright. Now mostly only in a few settings. Healthcare as yoiu know, and close areas such as correctional facilities. That's why I was surprised to find there was a vaccine at all. We were offered most vaccines (hepatitus, etc.) for diseases that are an occupational risk. From the CDC website, it looks like there are also some risks associated with the vaccine? It isn't very specific though. Do you know anything about that?
Last edited:
EdS
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
just to echo Rik -- there has been a massive increase in TB in the UK. It is a combination of immigration from (and soem holdiay travel to) TB hotspots -Bradford has one of the highest incidents in the UK - and increase in resistance / incomplete treatment.
It is very rare for bovine TB to pass to humans - usually from unpasturised milk rather than direct of the last six cases 2004 -2006 they where all link and spread via person to person form one source person. And they most likely got it from milk.
Bovine TB is an over rate threat in reality. The big impact is economic on cetain sectors.
It is very rare for bovine TB to pass to humans - usually from unpasturised milk rather than direct of the last six cases 2004 -2006 they where all link and spread via person to person form one source person. And they most likely got it from milk.
Bovine TB is an over rate threat in reality. The big impact is economic on cetain sectors.
Half the problem with the rise in TB again and for the continued presence in western countries is largely due to the people who are taking medication for the condition (antibiotics) do not finish the course they are prescribed.
How does TB affect cattle, or are they just carriers? I only ask because it seems to me that, if they are merely carriers and the risk of spreading to humans is so small, why bother with a cull in the first place? Is it just that the rules forbid the sale of TB infected meat from being sold?
If on the other hand cattle really do suffer, what is the problem with vaccinating the cows? Does it affect the meat/ milk, making it unfit for human consumption? Cows are vaccinated for a number of other diseases, what's wrong with vaccinating them against TB? If vaccination of the cattle poses no risk to humans then why not just vaccinate away and stick two fingers up to the EU? Surely it would be cheaper in the long run than a cull which many more intelligent than I believe would be ineffective in the first place?
If on the other hand cattle really do suffer, what is the problem with vaccinating the cows? Does it affect the meat/ milk, making it unfit for human consumption? Cows are vaccinated for a number of other diseases, what's wrong with vaccinating them against TB? If vaccination of the cattle poses no risk to humans then why not just vaccinate away and stick two fingers up to the EU? Surely it would be cheaper in the long run than a cull which many more intelligent than I believe would be ineffective in the first place?
Well, they've announced a postponement of the badger cull for a year.
So the badgers are gonna get a pass hopefully.
Well done to those who signed the petition.
160,000 + signatories.
The petition had nothing to do with the postponement - the NFU realised the original survey woefully underestimated the population. They therefore postponed the cull as they did not have enough capability to cull the much larger number that would comprise 70%.
Farmers doing the ethical, scientifically correct thing again - great isn't it
I heared numbers like a 70% reduction in the Badger population, that surely is extreme, I also heared and I cannot remember from where but possibly Farming Today ( BBC Radio 4) that even if they elliminated the Badger from GB there would still be TB in cattle.
All true. Why they need to eliminate it escapes me - meat is cooked and milk pasteurised. Silly people and silly EU rules.
I wonder if the extra time will allow any further development of thinking which might lead to a permanent reprieve? I'll put my hand up and admit that I'm not in favour of the cull. I just don't feel that it is either the right solution or that the trial cull will be successful in terms of reducing TB in cattle.
Ideally these test areas need to be culled as soon as possible to find out if this would be a solution. The previous test found in the term of the experiment 3-4 years IIRC it made things much worse, however less strictly controlled data from after that period and in other areas of the world suggests a significant decline of bovine TB in the longer term. Which means any experiment now has to continue 5-10 years to get any meaningful data.
Unfortunately thats a long time to wait for an answer if you are the poor farmer affected, but anything less makes this study pointless and they may as well go full scale now or do nothing. I'm no expert on wild animal control but effecting and maintaining a 70% cull paid for by the government seems a very difficult and expensive solution. Would just allowing farmers to control local numbers like they used to and still happens in other places not be a better and free solution? It would be more targeted as farmers with a problem would be more motivated to target infected sets.
Unfortunately thats a long time to wait for an answer if you are the poor farmer affected, but anything less makes this study pointless and they may as well go full scale now or do nothing. I'm no expert on wild animal control but effecting and maintaining a 70% cull paid for by the government seems a very difficult and expensive solution. Would just allowing farmers to control local numbers like they used to and still happens in other places not be a better and free solution? It would be more targeted as farmers with a problem would be more motivated to target infected sets.
Similar threads
