[1] https://caitlinrivers.substack.com/p/understanding-mysteriou...
* The "endemic disease" bucket describes things like cholera and known influenza strains, and what we're seeing is hazy reporting of flare-ups that happen in low-resource areas around the world on the regular.
* The "emerging infectious disease" bucket describes stuff like Ebola, which is scary but we've got something like a reasonable history of responding and containing to it, if we take it seriously.
* "Novel" is C19, or the first outbreaks of Ebola at the time, the point presumably at which we'd start thinking about novel precautionary measures applied preemptively.
So basically, if it's any of numerous reasonably well-known but very local diseases a fluid's probably going to go colored in some field test kit and say which one, else it could be something known (and often of known substantial concern for large-scale contagion) but too rare or understudied to have cheap robust quick tests yet so that has to be shipped to a real lab (probably with very high biosecurity rating), and if the lab doesn't recognize what they're seeing in their electron microscope and has to do fundamental research first to get a good biochemical profiling it's something truly expanding the boundaries of known infectious pathology?
Something like that?
What's the difference between an emerging and novel disease?
Novel is new. Never before seen. SARS-Cov-2 was a novel virus.
Emerging means identified but changing [1]. The Covid variants were EIDs. So are antibiotic-resistant strains.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_infectious_disease#Cl...
SARS-CoV-2 response could be as rapid as it was in no small part because two decades of research on SARS-CoV more or less was applicable, and looking at genetic similarity alone contemporary variants of SARS-CoV-2 are now more different from the original strain isolated in Wuhan than that strain is different from SARS-CoV.
So was the threat from pathogenic Coronaviruses really novel? To a degree, and depending on what aspects one chooses to emphasize maybe.
Also, I'd say the pathogen itself doesn't necessarily need to do the changing in the context of emerging diseases. I'd take it to mean they have potential to become more prevalent or have a more significant impact, but that could easily also be due to changes in conditions, including human behavior.
Are you saying this as an epidimeologist? (I'm not an epidimeologist. I've only studied the math.)
> looking at genetic similarity alone
Epidimeology is the study of disease in a population. You can't look at the virus alone.
The dividing line between emerging and novel is brighter than between emerging and existing. It has to do with whether the population has pre-existing immunity. SARS-CoV infection conferred no immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Getting infected with the Alpha variant, on the other hand, conferred immunity to Omega.
> I'd say the pathogen itself doesn't necessarily need to do the changing in the context of emerging diseases. I'd take it to mean they have potential to become more prevalent or have a more significant impact, but that could easily also be due to changes in conditions, including human behavior
Literally in the Wikipedia. "EIDs may also result from spread of an existing disease to a new population in a different geographic region, as occurs with West Nile fever outbreaks."
- Panzi is an isolated, hard-to-access area where malnutrition, prior epidemics, and seasonal flu have already weakened the population.
- Poor healthcare infrastructure and delayed medical intervention have amplified deaths.
- There is no evidence of rapid or widespread transmission. (see first point).
- Samples have been retrieved for testing. At this point, there is no information on transmission vector (assuming it’s even a disease)
I'm just hoping that this isn't anything new, and that it doesn't spread very far.
I learned from the last pandemic that the so called "experts" were in fact incompetent at best and power tripping political ideologues at worst. It was crazy watching the last 100 years of germ theory and infectious disease get thrown out and start over from scratch
1. The virus isnt real it's a conservative conspiracy
2. The virus is real but isnt spreading human to human (it obviously was at this point)
Bonus: Thinking the virus came from a lab doing research on that exact virus in proximity to the first cases was a conservative conspiracy instead of an obvious first guess
4. Masks dont work
5. Masks do work
6. Masks do work and you should always wear outside your house but not needed at BLM protests
7. The social distancing rules had zero scientific backing
This happens all the time but it's not usually so visibly combined with conspiracy theories about controlling people and all that kind of crazy stuff. America is so influenced by foolish postings on social media and popular, but not fact-based TV networks.
There was the realization that covid spread in a different way than the flu and the discovery of things spreading through the air was a bit surprising and unexpected, compare with traditional flu issues.
this wasn't a partisan issue in the beginning. it only became a partisan issue when 50% of the population started getting the "scientific information about efficacy of wearing masks" via Mary from Pennsylvania on "X"
same with the vaccines. the loudest pro-vaccine politicians (e.g. DeSantis) after seeing posts on "X" from our PA/MT/MO experts decided it would be super beneficial to their political career to make that a partisan issue as well :)
Really? Only then? No partisan aspect to official narratives about masks and virus origin being practically imposed upon the public via all narrative-sympathetic media and social media channels?
No partisan aspect to the blatant hypocrisy of BLM protests being no problem in terms of mass gatherings, while any other type of mass grouping was considered wrong, and something only done by ignorant covid-deniers?
Not to even mention the whole "don't use masks you selfish pig, no wait! use masks, yes, use them you ignorant bumpkin!" debacle...
I guess none of these wonderfully varied and acrobatic narratives in the least bit created good reason to make large numbers of people start mistrusting the hell out of a whole range of politicians and media personalities.
“At the current stage, we cannot speak of a large-scale epidemic, we must wait for the results of the samples taken,” health minister Kamba said regarding the mystery flu-like disease.
Not really "on alert" then, just waiting to see if what we're seeing is novel or what.
Edit: I show my ignorance of north of the border! It is a major Canadian news station. Thanks for the replies.
If you prefer:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y83ejz7eeo.amp
https://apnews.com/article/congo-mystery-disease-0df7a70c883...
No, it's not.