Zika Impact

[thomas998]

They think it arrived in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from a 2014 canoe race team from French Polynesia (I don't know what month, there was an outbreak there in 2013). This means that the virus was circulating for awhile in Brazil (at least January 2015) before the May 2015 reports of confirmed cases.

Re: Puerto Rico, so they had 8 cases in February? 20 March 2016 they reported 249 total cases. So that is quite a surge in cases and I'm guessing it is complicated by the presence of dengue, as those w/ dengue antibodies seem to have a more severe reaction to Zika virus. (There is some sort of strange interaction between having dengue and subsequently Zika infection, but most of the US population wouldn't have that.)

Of course the other problem with Puerto Rico is that a lot of people don't bother to go to a doctor when they get it. If you look at the percent of the blood at blood banks that is contaminated with zika that number is 2% which is probably the most accurate way to estimate just how wide spread the virus is there... If it truly is 2% of the population then the number infected since February has grown to around 70,000... Which means it is spreading much faster than anyone would have expected.

 

[SorcererMC]

Of course the other problem with Puerto Rico is that a lot of people don't bother to go to a doctor when they get it. If you look at the percent of the blood at blood banks that is contaminated with zika that number is 2% which is probably the most accurate way to estimate just how wide spread the virus is there... If it truly is 2% of the population then the number infected since February has grown to around 70,000... Which means it is spreading much faster than anyone would have expected.

Re: Puerto Rico I was trying to suggest that the Puerto Rican population may experience Zika virus differently than the continental US population. I didn't have that February case # 'filled in' in my notes, but I had the March one for the sake of comparison.

I am seeing estimates varying widely on the population that may have been infected (ie but asymptomatic); there was a Northeastern Univ computer model which estimated something like 65,000 cases so I'm willing to go along w/ your 70,000 estimate. The recent outbreaks and severe effects are so new to Zika that there just isn't enough information, and it's complicated by the fact that there is both vector transmission and sexual transmission. I think that disease outbreak case numbers tend to increase according to a logarithmic scale? I'm frustrated that there are not official numbers being released on suspected cases vs confirmed cases, which is typical for most outbreaks (eg MERS-CoV, Ebola, Avian Flu, etc.). It's important for establishing expectations re: 'sporadic' vs. 'widespread' disease.

Edit: Intersecting unknowns - human population infected/exposed, presence of virus in mosquito population, and how each of those populations interact/overlap.

 

[seabreezept813]

That's what I keep wondering. How many people in a person's city travels out of the country- specifically the Caribbean, central or South America? I would assume it would be quite a lot.

None of these warnings, outside of the super small neighborhood in Miami, are anything new. The travel advisories have been around for quite some time. So I'm just curious why all of the sudden people are worried about WDW?

Earlier this summer there were no known cases acquired in the U.S. The only people with zika had recently traveled to other affected countries. Now it looks like a very small number of people are acquiring it on our home turf. To my knowledge, most officials and doctors expected this change to occur given the time of year.

 

[seabreezept813]

South Carolina has confirmed cases but they are all from people who traveled outside the US recently.

Chances are very very low of getting Zika at the moment. Honestly I would say going on a Disney cruise is much more dangerous for catching Zika then Orlando. Still not real high chances, just much more then Orlando.

Of course the end result for a pregnant women is having a shrunken head baby so if the virus does start to spread I would stay out of Fl. in general maybe the whole South East. There are other places to go on vacation but that is only if Zika starts to spread locally.

This seems too generalized. Scientists have yet to find the link between zika and microcephaly. Many people have had zika and still had healthy children. It seems to be a specific area of Brazil where microcephaly is more common, so it could potentially be unrelated. Although it is likely that there is a link. The scariest part about zika in general are that there are many unknowns.

 

[21stamps]

Adding this for those who may be planning a WDW vacation and who are not in the at-risk population.

Re: Tourism Impact - ABC news/AP story 'FL Officials Go Into Damage Control Mode Over Zika' 6 Aug 2016
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/florida-officials-damage-control-mode-zika-41163645

Relevant excerpt, and best information/ expert opinion I have seen specifically on the subject of Orlando theme parks (and not coming from someone who is trying to promote tourism and/or potentially downplay the risk):

For the most part, theme park visitors should be fine, said North Carolina State University entomologist Michael Reiskind,
because the mosquito species most likely to spread the disease is less prevalent in Orlando and the theme parks
are likely to spend heavily on insect control.​

__________________
Orlando ranks 2nd among cities of high-risk (Miami being the first) according to the climate and length of the mosquito season. Within that context, the theme parks are could still be considered relatively 'safe' and may not have as high of a risk compared to the greater metropolitan area (ie theme parks as an enclave of Orlando b/c they have their own mosquito control).

Just curious as to where that info is from. How could Orlando be second to Miami? I would think a lot of other cities would be between the 2.
Here's a great article that shows what is actually going on-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/4/12363312/zika-florida-united-states

These 2 are not new, but here is what I found on city rankings and risk factors --

 

[SorcererMC]

Just curious as to where that info is from. How could Orlando be second to Miami? I would think a lot of other cities would be between the 2.
Here's a great article that shows what is actually going on-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/4/12363312/zika-florida-united-states

These 2 are not new, but here is what I found on city rankings and risk factors --View attachment 154931 View attachment 154932

Unfortunately - no, there are not other cities between them according to the environmental factors of climate and mosquitoes.
I am using two different sources for that. One is probably the original source for the above table of FL cities w/ the lengthened mosquito season. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-mosquito-days-increasing-zika-risk-in-us-20553 .

There is a FoxNews article (consider the source/ caution) re: FL tourism impact that uses the PLoS Outbreaks medical journal article I posted a few pages back, to rank cities by risk on a 1.0-10.0 scale. Miami 10/10, Orlando 9.4/10, Tampa 9.1/10, Jacksonville 8.4/10
Non-FL cities are below 9.0: NYC 8.5/10, Atlanta 8.1/10, Houston 8.1/10, Brownsville, TX 8.9/10
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/...among-florida-tourism-industry-officials.html

Edit: Looking at the cities map you posted that appears to be ranked according to cities at risk having larger populations.
Edit #2: How is NY not even in the top 10 given the influx of intl tourists?

 

[SorcererMC]

This seems too generalized. Scientists have yet to find the link between zika and microcephaly. Many people have had zika and still had healthy children. It seems to be a specific area of Brazil where microcephaly is more common, so it could potentially be unrelated. Although it is likely that there is a link. The scariest part about zika in general are that there are many unknowns.

Just for the record here is the CDC press release 13 April 2016 upon their decision on the ZIKV microcephaly causation:
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcephaly.html

A separate medical study 3 April 2016 using statistical analysis/ correlation (correlation does not equal causation): http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/04/03/046896

 

[SorcererMC]

Just curious as to where that info is from. How could Orlando be second to Miami? I would think a lot of other cities would be between the 2.
Here's a great article that shows what is actually going on-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/4/12363312/zika-florida-united-states

These 2 are not new, but here is what I found on city rankings and risk factors --View attachment 154931 View attachment 154932

I think the discrepancy is due to the studies (both the Vox link you posted and the Climate Central link I posted) being based on the Aedes albopictus mosquito and not Aedes aegypti mosquito.

 

[21stamps]

Unfortunately - no, there are not other cities between them according to the environmental factors of climate and mosquitoes.
I am using two different sources for that. One is probably the original source for the above table of FL cities w/ the lengthened mosquito season. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-mosquito-days-increasing-zika-risk-in-us-20553 .

There is a FoxNews article (consider the source/ caution) re: FL tourism impact that uses the PLoS Outbreaks medical journal article I posted a few pages back, to rank cities by risk on a 1.0-10.0 scale. Miami 10/10, Orlando 9.4/10, Tampa 9.1/10, Jacksonville 8.4/10
Non-FL cities are below 9.0: NYC 8.5/10, Atlanta 8.1/10, Houston 8.1/10, Brownsville, TX 8.9/10
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/...among-florida-tourism-industry-officials.html

Edit: Looking at the cities map you posted that appears to be ranked according to cities at risk having larger populations.
Edit #2: How is NY not even in the top 10 given the influx of intl tourists?

I have no clue. The bigger issue is, I don't think anyone has a clue. Lol

 

[SorcererMC]

I have no clue. The bigger issue is, I don't think anyone has a clue. Lol

Well, I think it demonstrates that it's important to think critically about the information that is out there - whether it is from the media or from reliable sources. I saw a foreign govt website - which I generally consider reliable as a global health authority - say that Miami, FL was having"widespread transmission". I was floored. I'm definitely concerned about the circus that might ensue if/ when there are other confirmed cases of local transmission outside of Miami, FL.

 

[seabreezept813]

Just for the record here is the CDC press release 13 April 2016 upon their decision on the ZIKV microcephaly causation:
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcephaly.html

A separate medical study 3 April 2016 using statistical analysis/ correlation (correlation does not equal causation): http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/04/03/046896

Interesting info.. thank you

 

[LAKid53]

This seems too generalized. Scientists have yet to find the link between zika and microcephaly. Many people have had zika and still had healthy children. It seems to be a specific area of Brazil where microcephaly is more common, so it could potentially be unrelated. Although it is likely that there is a link. The scariest part about zika in general are that there are many unknowns.

I must disagree about the link between the virus and microcephaly. Here's a link to the research being conducted at FSU. Researchers are convinced there is a link.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEkfzyTLoGdvE8JWdoWlewgJSXi1w

 

[thomas998]

Re: Puerto Rico I was trying to suggest that the Puerto Rican population may experience Zika virus differently than the continental US population. I didn't have that February case # 'filled in' in my notes, but I had the March one for the sake of comparison.

I am seeing estimates varying widely on the population that may have been infected (ie but asymptomatic); there was a Northeastern Univ computer model which estimated something like 65,000 cases so I'm willing to go along w/ your 70,000 estimate. The recent outbreaks and severe effects are so new to Zika that there just isn't enough information, and it's complicated by the fact that there is both vector transmission and sexual transmission. I think that disease outbreak case numbers tend to increase according to a logarithmic scale? I'm frustrated that there are not official numbers being released on suspected cases vs confirmed cases, which is typical for most outbreaks (eg MERS-CoV, Ebola, Avian Flu, etc.). It's important for establishing expectations re: 'sporadic' vs. 'widespread' disease.

Edit: Intersecting unknowns - human population infected/exposed, presence of virus in mosquito population, and how each of those populations interact/overlap.

Real problem is lots of officials that may have good data don't want to share it for fear of causing panic or fear of it impacting tourism. It would be nice if all the information for something like this was as readily available as what clothes those Kardashian freaks are wearing each day... but sadly massive information overload only happens with things that don't matter.

 

[SorcererMC]

Real problem is lots of officials that may have good data don't want to share it for fear of causing panic or fear of it impacting tourism

I suspect this is happening to a certain extent, I understand the need for restraint so as to not cause panic or fear. I'm usually comfortable with the idea that govt officials can't divulge certain information (eg 'classified'). Re: Zika virus, I feel like the general public is not properly calibrated to react, which is detrimental when they have an important role to play in terms of prevention and mosquito control. In general, I don't find dismissing the threat (to tourism or otherwise) to be a useful strategy; I think it could backfire b/c uncertainty is bad for business.

 

[seabreezept813]

I must disagree about the link between the virus and microcephaly. Here's a link to the research being conducted at FSU. Researchers are convinced there is a link.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://med.fsu.edu/uploads/files/newsPubs/print/FSU,%20Johns%20Hopkins%20researchers%20make%20major%20discovery%20about%20Zika%20virus.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjz69-v863OAhVLRSYKHR8cAtsQFggJMAI&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEkfzyTLoGdvE8JWdoWlewgJSXi1w

Yup someone else beat you to it. I was going off of info I researched in June when debating whether to go to south Florida/the Caribbean. Thanks for the info.

 

[21stamps]

Yup someone else beat you to it. I was going off of info I researched in June when debating whether to go to south Florida/the Caribbean. Thanks for the info.

Which did you decide?

I suspect this is happening to a certain extent, I understand the need for restraint so as to not cause panic or fear. I'm usually comfortable with the idea that govt officials can't divulge certain information (eg 'classified'). Re: Zika virus, I feel like the general public is not properly calibrated to react, which is detrimental when they have an important role to play in terms of prevention and mosquito control. In general, I don't find dismissing the threat (to tourism or otherwise) to be a useful strategy; I think it could backfire b/c uncertainty is bad for business.

I don't think they are hiding anything, maybe I'm naive for that. I just think there are too many unknowns.
Being pregnant and contracting Zika does not automatically mean that your baby will have severe birth defects, or any. I've read reports that women are already terminating pregnancies over it though. I don't think our government wants to have that become a huge trend.. So they're taking the caution approach, without trying to create mass panic.

 

[SorcererMC]

I don't think they are hiding anything, maybe I'm naive for that. I just think there are too many unknowns.
Being pregnant and contracting Zika does not automatically mean that your baby will have severe birth defects, or any. I've read reports that women are already terminating pregnancies over it though. I don't think our government wants to have that become a huge trend.. So they're taking the caution approach, without trying to create mass panic.

I think that there is under-reporting of cases, which is not necessarily the fault of public officials. I'm uneasy about the Miami cluster being declared 'investigation closed', after one week, when there could still be test results outstanding. (ETA: Better diagnostics are needed; maybe they are using a rapid test or have lab capabilities for processing results that I am not aware of).

Last night, I reviewed the numbers of actual cases vs. suspected cases for the 2013-14 French Polynesia outbreak. It's one of the few Zika case studies where there is information; it's too soon to know for Brazil and Puerto Rico. It doesn't mean that the US outbreak will be the same as any of those. I haven't run the French Polynesia numbers yet, but by looking, the number of actual cases is a fraction of what the suspected cases are. I was saying four letter words reading it (I rarely curse).

Cautious approach - definitely. It's not just congenital malformations like microcephaly, but other neurological conditions like seizure disorders that can require life-long care, and it may take years in an otherwise healthy child to present those kinds of symptoms. I don't think the US has faced this kind of potential public health crisis since the poliovirus in the 1940s (from a pediatric medicine perspective).

 

[seabreezept813]

Which did you decide?

I don't think they are hiding anything, maybe I'm naive for that. I just think there are too many unknowns.
Being pregnant and contracting Zika does not automatically mean that your baby will have severe birth defects, or any. I've read reports that women are already terminating pregnancies over it though. I don't think our government wants to have that become a huge trend.. So they're taking the caution approach, without trying to create mass panic.

We had really wanted to go to the Caribbean because we finished my husband's green card process this year and wanted to leave the country. But because we fall into that category of family planning, my doctors told us we could only go somewhere unaffected by cdc warnings. We ended up going to Fort Lauderdale for a few nights and stayed right on the beach. We didn't see any mosquitos or get bites, but we also didn't venture out very far and wore bug spray.
Last fall we were in Brazil in various parts of the country. We saw plenty of bugs everywhere but didn't encounter biting bugs. But we were in Rio (the city) and the farmland in Minas (the mountains).

 

[21stamps]

I think that there is under-reporting of cases, which is not necessarily the fault of public officials. I'm uneasy about the Miami cluster being declared 'investigation closed', after one week, when there could still be test results outstanding.

Last night, I reviewed the numbers of actual cases vs. suspected cases for the 2013-14 French Polynesia outbreak. It's one of the few Zika case studies where there is information; it's too soon to know for Brazil and Puerto Rico. It doesn't mean that the US outbreak will be the same as any of those. I haven't run the French Polynesia numbers yet, but by looking, the number of actual cases is a fraction of what the suspected cases are. I was saying four letter words reading it (I rarely curse).

Cautious approach - definitely. It's not just congenital malformations like microcephaly, but other neurological conditions like seizure disorders that can require life-long care, and it may take years in an otherwise healthy child to present those kinds of symptoms. I don't think the US has faced this kind of potential public health crisis since the poliovirus in the 1940s (from a pediatric medicine perspective).

I would be scared to death if I was pregnant and contracted Zika.. The last I read though is that 29% of pregnancies have had some kind of negative outcome. 71% are fine. Other sources say that only 1% to 15% will actually have defects. That's a HUGE discrepancy. So before the gov't issues a panic and every pregnant woman runs to the nearest PP, I think we need to know more about it, and follow more cases.

I also want to add that I don't think they can positively say that the miscarriages were 100% due to the Zika virus. We don't know the ages of all of the women (not that I have read anyway), or any other factors that may be involved. I won't deny that the stories are incredibly frightening though. If I was pregnant/trying I'd pick a place far away from any Zika reports. I just don't think Orlando is one of them, especially WDW.

 

[21stamps]

We had really wanted to go to the Caribbean because we finished my husband's green card process this year and wanted to leave the country. But because we fall into that category of family planning, my doctors told us we could only go somewhere unaffected by cdc warnings. We ended up going to Fort Lauderdale for a few nights and stayed right on the beach. We didn't see any mosquitos or get bites, but we also didn't venture out very far and wore bug spray.
Last fall we were in Brazil in various parts of the country. We saw plenty of bugs everywhere but didn't encounter biting bugs. But we were in Rio (the city) and the farmland in Minas (the mountains).

Congrats on the Green Card!!!
I think mosquito repellent companies will see the biggest influx of profit that they've ever seen. Hopefully everyone uses it. The only positive about this horrible is virus is that it can be prevented. The more people who protect themselves from getting a bite, the less of a chance it has to spread.