10 ms·

Terrifying. Doing some quick back of the envelope calculations: 1,000,000 people in Brazil got the virus, and there are 4,000 cases of microcephaly. Let's assum

by geertj 11y ago

Terrifying. Doing some quick back of the envelope calculations: 1,000,000 people in Brazil got the virus, and there are 4,000 cases of microcephaly. Let's assume that most of these are caused by the virus (pre-virus level of microcephaly were very low) and assume half of the people are women. Also assume roughly two pregnancies over a women's life, and an average life expectancy of 73 years. This would mean that of the 500,000 women that got the virus, roughly 2% of these women were pregnant while getting the virus, which equates to 10,000 women, resulting in 4,000 cases of microcephaly. This would be a 40% chance of microcephaly when a woman catches the virus during pregnancy. That is absurdly high for a virus that is starting to become (or already is) an epidemic. There's many assumptions in the calculation and I'm sure the medical profession has much better numbers. As I said it's a back of the envelope. But even if the chances are 20% or 10%, that is still extremely high and worrying. The recommendation not to get pregnant in countries where the virus is active suddenly makes sense.

aikah 11y ago
> The recommendation not to get pregnant in countries where the virus is active suddenly makes sense How is one going to implement such a policy ? one can't make people stop having sex and AFAIK El Salvador is very religious (no abortions...) and poor (no contraceptives ...). This epidemic concerns the whole world IMHO and we should put a maximum of resources into finding a cure or a vaccine (if none exist yet) ASAP. Now i'm even hearing that this virus might be a STD ... scary.
- snegu 11y ago
  It's not a policy, it's a recommendation. Women can do with it what they will.
  - meagain20000 11y ago
    Indeed. Hope the government educates them at least on how to prevent pregnancy and also provides the resources. In reality man should also be educated and provided with lots of condoms.
    - ars 11y ago
      Condoms don't really work for preventing pregnancy though, the failure rate is too high for that. They have success at reducing pregnancy rates, but not at stopping it.
      - meagain20000 11y ago
        I was not aware of this and without some sources I find it hard to believe. If condoms do not prevent pregnancy then they don't prevent anything.
        deathanatos 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me... No contraceptive is perfect, and the rates vary between methods. Note that some of the methods in the table can be combined (and often are), thus lowering the overall chance of pregnancy. ars's comment seems a bit extreme; while condoms don't perfectly prevent pregnancy, they are certainly quite effective at reducing the chance of it.
        ars 11y ago
        Correct. They don't prevent, they reduce. Used at typical rates, 18% of women will still get pregnant every year (reduced from 85% - it's a large reduction, but I would not call it prevent). For a situation like this, with (according to geertj's calculations) 40% chance of severe birth defect, that's far too much. Condoms are not the solution here - in fact I think they do more harm than good because people think they work (like you did), while they are not sufficiently effective.
        meagain20000 11y ago
        Google search: how effective is a condom Result: When used consistently and correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy and are the only form of birth control that also can prevent STIs.3,7,8 This is why it's important to follow directions for correct use. Somebody is lying.
  - krick 11y ago
    Although it is only a recommendation, ignoring it might be more problematic than it seems right now. Of course, I'm not assuming that majority of Argentinian women would actually make careful review of all the risks, but still. Critically low newborn number for 2 years actually is a big deal. If we assume there won't be many babies in 2017 it means there won't be many 7 year olds in 2024. That probably means financing 2-nd class of elementary school that year is pretty pointless, which means problems if you actually had a healthy newborn child in 2017. That means virtually no need for goods & services targeting some specific age, critical hit for businesses. On the other hand that means the opposite situation for those born in 2018-year, which also is not normal. (Overpopulated classes some 7 years later, at the very least.) So, yeah. This year starts pretty crazy.
- charles_byworth 11y ago
  > How is one going to implement such a policy ? You're asking how they will implement a policy to recommend something? Probably with some advertising and public service announcements I guess. Why does that puzzle you so much?
- calvinbhai 11y ago
  This policy can only be implemented, if the church agrees to pitch in. Otherwise, almost impossible.
fludlight 11y ago
The birth rate in Brazil in 2015 was 14.46 births/1,000 population[1]. The twin rate is 8.8/1,000 births[2]. So, of 1,000,000 who got sick, roughly 14,300 were pregnant women[3], resulting in a 28% chance of microcephaly. That still comes with a big asterisk since 80% cases of the disease in the general population are asymptomatic[4]. But(!) pregnant women are at increased risk for many diseases. [1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025239#s5 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [3] who carried to term [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilians-panic-as-mosquito-linked-to-brain-damage-in-thousands-of-babies/2016/01/15/7e8e2dec-b8ca-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilians...
- saalweachter 11y ago
  I wonder whether there is a window during pregnancy for a Zika infection causing microcephaly. eg, thalidomide caused different defects depending on which day of the pregnancy the mother took it -- take it on the Nth day and you get blindness, on the Mth day you get malformed limbs. If it's something like "only a risk during the second trimester", then that 28% chance becomes "100% during second trimester".

by geertj 11y ago

aikah 11y ago

> The recommendation not to get pregnant in countries where the virus is active suddenly makes sense How is one going to implement such a policy ? one can't make people stop having sex and AFAIK El Salvador is very religious (no abortions...) and poor (no contraceptives ...). This epidemic concerns the whole world IMHO and we should put a maximum of resources into finding a cure or a vaccine (if none exist yet) ASAP. Now i'm even hearing that this virus might be a STD ... scary.

snegu 11y ago
It's not a policy, it's a recommendation. Women can do with it what they will.
- meagain20000 11y ago
  Indeed. Hope the government educates them at least on how to prevent pregnancy and also provides the resources. In reality man should also be educated and provided with lots of condoms.
  - ars 11y ago
    Condoms don't really work for preventing pregnancy though, the failure rate is too high for that. They have success at reducing pregnancy rates, but not at stopping it.
    - meagain20000 11y ago
      I was not aware of this and without some sources I find it hard to believe. If condoms do not prevent pregnancy then they don't prevent anything.
      - deathanatos 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me... No contraceptive is perfect, and the rates vary between methods. Note that some of the methods in the table can be combined (and often are), thus lowering the overall chance of pregnancy. ars's comment seems a bit extreme; while condoms don't perfectly prevent pregnancy, they are certainly quite effective at reducing the chance of it.
      - ars 11y ago
        Correct. They don't prevent, they reduce. Used at typical rates, 18% of women will still get pregnant every year (reduced from 85% - it's a large reduction, but I would not call it prevent). For a situation like this, with (according to geertj's calculations) 40% chance of severe birth defect, that's far too much. Condoms are not the solution here - in fact I think they do more harm than good because people think they work (like you did), while they are not sufficiently effective.
        meagain20000 11y ago
        Google search: how effective is a condom Result: When used consistently and correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy and are the only form of birth control that also can prevent STIs.3,7,8 This is why it's important to follow directions for correct use. Somebody is lying.
- krick 11y ago
  Although it is only a recommendation, ignoring it might be more problematic than it seems right now. Of course, I'm not assuming that majority of Argentinian women would actually make careful review of all the risks, but still. Critically low newborn number for 2 years actually is a big deal. If we assume there won't be many babies in 2017 it means there won't be many 7 year olds in 2024. That probably means financing 2-nd class of elementary school that year is pretty pointless, which means problems if you actually had a healthy newborn child in 2017. That means virtually no need for goods & services targeting some specific age, critical hit for businesses. On the other hand that means the opposite situation for those born in 2018-year, which also is not normal. (Overpopulated classes some 7 years later, at the very least.) So, yeah. This year starts pretty crazy.
charles_byworth 11y ago
> How is one going to implement such a policy ? You're asking how they will implement a policy to recommend something? Probably with some advertising and public service announcements I guess. Why does that puzzle you so much?
calvinbhai 11y ago
This policy can only be implemented, if the church agrees to pitch in. Otherwise, almost impossible.

fludlight 11y ago

The birth rate in Brazil in 2015 was 14.46 births/1,000 population[1]. The twin rate is 8.8/1,000 births[2]. So, of 1,000,000 who got sick, roughly 14,300 were pregnant women[3], resulting in a 28% chance of microcephaly. That still comes with a big asterisk since 80% cases of the disease in the general population are asymptomatic[4]. But(!) pregnant women are at increased risk for many diseases. [1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025239#s5 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [3] who carried to term [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilians-panic-as-mosquito-linked-to-brain-damage-in-thousands-of-babies/2016/01/15/7e8e2dec-b8ca-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilians...

saalweachter 11y ago
I wonder whether there is a window during pregnancy for a Zika infection causing microcephaly. eg, thalidomide caused different defects depending on which day of the pregnancy the mother took it -- take it on the Nth day and you get blindness, on the Mth day you get malformed limbs. If it's something like "only a risk during the second trimester", then that 28% chance becomes "100% during second trimester".