health

Monkeypox emergency could last months, with window closing to stop spread, experts say

29 Comments
By Jennifer Rigby

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Why are they trying to hype this all of a sudden? Tedros - who is not a medical expert - overruled a majority of the panel that recommended not making this issue an emergency. What could his motives be?

It could be related to the recent appointment of Susan Michie as the WHO's new nudge chief. Michie, a communist millionaire (!?), is one of the people from the UK's government's nudge unit set up to manipulate public behaviour during the COVID lockdowns. She has also advocated for permanent mask-wearing. She's not the kind of person who should be trusted with power and influence.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Yawn. Covid is losing traction to the masses so let's throw some more at the wall and see what sticks.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Why are they trying to hype this all of a sudden? Tedros - who is not a medical expert - overruled a majority of the panel that recommended not making this issue an emergency. What could his motives be?

Complete mischaracterization, the panel did not reach a decision, so the director (that is a perfectly qualified expert in public health) opted to go in the side of caution, which clearly was the best decision taking into account the new information available.

There is no need for conspiracy theories to explain a decision that is supported by experts in the field around the world, reading the article would have made this clear.

I think it's useful to know from a sexual health expert which behaviors may lead to increased risk of transmission

Why? do you believe a N=1 report has any importance against studies done on hundreds or thousands of people that already have this explanation?

Yawn. Covid is losing traction to the masses so let's throw some more at the wall and see what sticks.

So according to you the experts that recognize the risk and can prove it with epidemiological evidence are just wrong? any argument except that you like to believe in conspiracies?

Something like 99.8% of cases are gay men and it's likely to stay that way since it's only spreading due to their behaviour.

The article explicitly describes other ways for the infection for sustained transmission, and the very real possibility of mutations that would lead to the disease being more easily transmitted between humans, eliminating the need of sexual contact for efficient spreading.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

How does 1 expert overruling 9 other experts become a "consensus of global experts"?

When you redefine "consensus" to be whatever the hell you want it to mean. Post-modernism applied to medicine. What could possibly go wrong?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

 So what’s all the panic about? 

Sustained transmission that can lead to the introduction of the infection to the world in general, this frequently ends up with a big change of the characteristics of the disease that cause huge health problems (like it has happened with West Nile or Zika for example) specially on developing countries.

This is the timing where a global emergency is to be declared, when there is still time to prevent the worst consequences, waiting until things go to the drain to do something about it is obviously the worst way to do it.

Could you please explain why 9 out of the 15 experts ( a clear majority) on the panel disagreed his decision.

Because they choose to side of convenience, economy, simplicity? the evidence at the point of the meeting could justify both decisions, but this is a changing situation and the newest data clearly points out to a risk that is bigger than predicted, which is why the experts on the article justify the decision.

This may be surprising for people that systematically reject science, but in the beginning of every public health problem there is never enough information to make a 100% sure decision, so sometimes things have to be done focusing on what could be found in the future and what would have worst consequences.

How does 1 expert overruling 9 other experts become a "consensus of global experts"?

Strawman, there was no "overruling" the decision was not made by the panel, so it was done by the general director. Overruling would mean a clear decision not to enact the emergency was reached (which by this point would have been clearly wrong) this is not the case.

Now, if you could quote where this was said to be the consensus of all the experts of the world? neither the article or the comments make this claim, just that the WHO decision is justified and has been proved correct in light of the evidence at the moment

When you redefine "consensus" to be whatever the hell you want it to mean

That would apply to the comment you are quoting, not to the article, that never made this claim, it just presented the opinion of the experts being quoted while never saying this was the only one. This is the fallacy called a strawman, making up an imaginary argument to defeat because the real arguments could not be refuted.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Thank you for the clarification, it makes sense now.

It should be clear from the very beginning that making up things nobody has said is invalid and only makes it obvious you could not address the actual arguments being said.

When you refer to a "consensus of global experts" you actually mean a consensus of cherry picked talking heads who the media paid to spout a narrative.

Well, imaginary things nobody used as an argument can be as wrong as you want, after all they are made up precisely so you can disprove them, even if not real.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Virusrex, those are quite some impressive mental gymnastics for a Sunday morning. Have a healthy breakfast?

Did you do some strengthening exercises to tighten your grip when clutching at straws?

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Stop the spread by refraining from the activity that is responsible for the spread. You all know what that activity is by the ones that represent nearly 100% of the cases.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan should close the border. Every Japanese returning to Japan should be tested for Monkey Pox.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Virusrex, those are quite some impressive mental gymnastics for a Sunday morning. Have a healthy breakfast?

Once you give up trying to address the arguments that disprove your point and lower yourself to "attack" those that wrote it you make it clear you completely accept being proved wrong.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

BigYen

I almost never agree with most of the above posters but in this case I do. Monkeypox has caused zero deaths so far, is not transmissible by airborne infection, and the vast majority of cases are being experienced in a cohort to which most people do not belong. It is curable by available means of medication and although unpleasant, sufferers will almost certainly recover. So what’s all the panic about? Target vulnerable populations, educate them as to the risks, treat medically when necessary and stop trying to beat this up into something it isn’t, i.e. another pandemic.

Outside of Africa (where there are countries where the virus is endemic) there have been 3 deaths so far. A 41 year old man in Brazil with underlying comorbidities who died two days ago. On the same day another man in Spain died of an encephalitis associated with a monkeypox infection. And the third one died yesterday although I don't know of more information on that one. It is quite rare, nontheless there have been 3 cases where monkeypox is believed to have played a role in their death.

Ashley Shiba

Monkey Pox, is a gay or bi-sexual transmitted disease. So a straight individual has sexual relations with a bi-sexual partner unknowingly it is going to spread even further. I am not sure now, however, many years ago I was in a gay bar and as a straight woman with my gay friends was an eye opening experience. There were many married Japanese men and I only knew this fact because of their wedding bands.

It is indeed correct that most cases were men (around 99%) of which most engaged in sex with other men (again around the same %), but monkeypox is usually not a disease that is primarily sexually transmitted.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON385

...

Monkeypox virus is transmitted from one person to another by close contact with lesions, body fluids, respiratory droplets and contaminated materials such as bedding. The incubation period of monkeypox is usually from 6 to 13 days but can range from 5 to 21 days.

...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Scientists advising the World Health Organization (WHO) on monkeypox say the window is closing to stop its spread,

I hope these are the scientists who were not waffling over whether or not to call monkeypox a global emergency when the WHO agency, which a month ago decided it was not.

Thankfully Tedros overruled the committee recently.

A majority of committee members voted against the move and, in an unprecedented step, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared an emergency anyway.

By overriding the committee, Tedros seems to have learned from the many mistakes the WHO has made recently, such as with the Covid crisis.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/07/23/who-monkeypox-outbreak-global-emergency/10134299002/

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Close to 100% are gay men, and 41% also tested positive for HIV.

And yet this non medical Tedros overruled the majority of the panel of actual experts.

This is not a global emergency.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Close to 100% are gay men, and 41% also tested positive for HIV.

I believe this is crucial information no one cant fond in your long article...?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I hope these are the scientists who were not waffling over whether or not to call monkeypox a global emergency when the WHO agency, which a month ago decided it was not.

That is the whole point of analyzing scientific evidence. When the evidence points out to one conclusion that is what is done, when the evidence changes and points to the opposite then a change is justified. Arguing that anybody should have a time machine and know the data from the future so recommendations and conclusions are not changed ever is deeply irrational.

Thankfully Tedros overruled the committee recently

No such thing happened, there was no decision done, so the head of the organization took one based on justified precautions, the committee was never overruled.

By overriding the committee, Tedros seems to have learned from the many mistakes the WHO has made recently, such as with the Covid crisis.

No mistakes, once again only taking decisions based on the available evidence, not on future evidence that you think they should take into account even when it was not there at the time.

>

1 ( +4 / -3 )

And yet this non medical Tedros overruled the majority of the panel of actual experts.

No overrule was made, and being an expert on public health is a much better background that being a medical doctor in order to make decisions about public health, that is the whole point of the preparation.

You're not interested in facts and evidence anyway, demonstrated by your constant appeal to a thoroughly corrupt manufactured consensus. 

You have presented no data, no evidence, just misrepresented information that has been very easily disproved. Pretending you are right because the whole scientific and medical community in the world is in a supposed conspiracy that would damage their own health, and their family's and friends is simply not believable.

It also completely fails to justify your personal attacks, that are not only invalid and against the rules, they are also worthless to defend your point. thus revealing you already understand you are mistaken and have no argument to defend what you believed.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

No overrule was made, and being an expert on public health is a much better background that being a medical doctor in order to make decisions about public health, that is the whole point of the preparation.

He certainly “overruled” the panel under the definition of the word “to exercise control or influence over.”---which is exactly what he did, You misunderstand the meaning of the word.

Because they choose to side of convenience, economy, simplicity? the evidence at the point of the meeting could justify both decisions, but this is a changing situation and the newest data clearly points out to a risk that is bigger than predicted, which is why the experts on the article justify the decision. 

Fallacious reasoning—just because you claim the evidence could justify both decisions it does not mean both decisions would be right according. And, another mistake you made is claiming there is evidence to justify both decisions. Just because someone makes a decisions does not mean there was actual evidence upon which to base it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No mistakes, once again only taking decisions based on the available evidence, not on future evidence that you think they should take into account even when it was not there at the time.

Oh, you are arguing with your earlier statement here!!

Let's take a look:

so sometimes things have to be done focusing on what could be found in the future and what would have worst consequences.

Meaning they can’t see what is 100% correct in the present, but they have a crystal ball and can see what will be 100% correct information in the future?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

He certainly “overruled” the panel under the definition of the word

No he did not, if the panel decided not to make the declaration of emergency then it would have been overruled, in reality no decision was made, so he took one. That is not overruling in any sense.

Fallacious reasoning—just because you claim the evidence could justify both decisions it does not mean both decisions would be right according

That is not the argument, the argument is that for something to be considered a mistake then the available evidence that contradicts it must be present at the time of the decision, you keep bringing examples where the future evidence is presented, even when that evidence was reflected in different conclusions.

Oh, you are arguing with your earlier statement here!!

No, I am arguing with the argument that becomes necessary for your position to make any sense, qualifying as "mistakes" things that depend on future data to be known to actually be characterized as such.

Meaning they can’t see what is 100% correct in the present, but they have a crystal ball and can see what will be 100% correct information in the future?

That is your argument. for people with common sense this is obviously irrational, since they can't see the future then decisions have to be made according to available evidence at the moment, not in the future.

Can you even find experts calling the WHO decision mistaken? all this comes only from your own idea about how future evidence should be considered, that is not a rational argument.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

No he did not, if the panel decided not to make the declaration of emergency then it would have been overruled, in reality no decision was made, so he took one. That is not overruling in any sense.

Yes he did “overrule” the panel under the definition of the word “to exercise control or influence over.”---which is exactly what he did, You misunderstand the meaning of the word.

No, I am arguing with the argument that becomes necessary for your position to make any sense, qualifying as "mistakes" things that depend on future data to be known to actually be characterized as such.

Ok, you just forgot what you wrote earlier.

That is your argument. for people with common sense this is obviously irrational, since they can't see the future then decisions have to be made according to available evidence at the moment, not in the future.

It is my showing you your two contrasting arguments; arguing with yourself.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The latest WHO announcement came after the second meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee (EC), which was unable to reach a consensus about the severity of the outbreak. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s director general, overruled the committee by declaring monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern.”

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/monkeypox-outbreak-spreading-who-declares-global-health-emergency

Regardless of whether "overruled" is the correct term, the fact remains that the decision was made by Tedros, who is not a medical expert and he ignored the majority opinion of the expert panel.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites