12 ms·

Evidence of Zika virus found in tears

73 points by upen 10y ago

tezza 10y ago
"Cry into this jar and write your name on it." "I've printed a copy of my bill with the test lab fees in case you have trouble getting welled up"
- ChrisClark 10y ago
  As someone not in the US. What are the bills like for test labs?
  - jonah 10y ago
    As an example, here are some price lists from a diagnostic laboratory in Arizona. https://www.sonoraquest.com/uploads/docs/Pricing_Tool_2014_012014.pdf https://www.sonoraquest.com/uploads/docs/Pricing_Tool_2014_0... https://www.sonoraquest.com/(S(cqosic2jgfo1us45at4h1xmh))/my-lab-request/my-lab-request-test-menu https://www.sonoraquest.com/(S(cqosic2jgfo1us45at4h1xmh))/my...
  - ars 10y ago
    > As someone not in the US. What difference does US make? It's not something someone in the US would know. If someone is sick the CDC would do the testing, and they don't change. The only time you would have to pay is if you are doing it out of curiosity, and then you would have to pay if outside the US as well. No one in the US who is sick with Zika would ever pay those fees.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Actually, many lab tests charges are passed on to the patient: employment drug tests, std tests, PRN blood tests, etc etc. I don't believe the OP was asking about Zika in particular.
      - nommm-nommm 10y ago
        Um... I've never been billed for an employment drug test or an employment background check and I've had several of both.
        pscsbs 10y ago
        Probably because you or your employer have health insurance to cover the costs.
        ams6110 10y ago
        Health insurance would be unlikely to cover an employment drug screen. If you're not paying for it, the employer is. Same with the background check. And it makes sense that if the employer is requiring these things that they should pay for them. They get to expense it as an administrative cost of hiring.
        jacalata 10y ago
        Employers make employees pay for them often enough that many states have laws prohibiting it > Q: Can I make an applicant/employee pay for the costs involved in drug testing? A: There are certain states that specifically address this issue, and employers should familiarize themselves with their state requirements. For example, employers in New Jersey cannot make a candidate pay for his/her drug testing (or medical or other evaluations), unless the position they are applying for is that of a security guard. http://www.sbsofsa.com/Articles/Drug_Testing_FAQs.html http://www.sbsofsa.com/Articles/Drug_Testing_FAQs.html
        pluma 10y ago
        Wow, that's adding insult to injury. I mean, employee drug testing (outside a small number of specific fields and roles) is unthinkable enough as it is, but making the employee also pay for that kind of invasion of their privacy is just despicable.
- msane 10y ago
  Save this sort of comment for reddit
  - themartorana 10y ago
    Save this sort of comment for yourself.
binalpatel 10y ago
Found this pretty informative answer to one of the questions I had (mainly, whether Zika had always been this bad, or had mutated in some way to make it worse). http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42891/did-the-zika-virus-mutate http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42891/did-the-zik... TLDR: It's likely it's spreading so quickly because there's no natural resistance in the areas where there have been outbreaks, though this isn't proven.
- transfire 10y ago
  It's spreading probably b/c it has been purposefully transplanted to push the hype machine. Not only is Zika non-lethal, they have yet to prove any link to any serious symptoms.* For the vast majority it is no worse than catching a cold and you are over it in a week, and subsequently immune. Hence it is it's own vaccine. All this hype is for various nefarious purposes of making $$$ (and possibly I fear testing DNA transmission). $1.9 billion for what? Toxoplasmosis is worse than Zika and 200,000 people in the U.S. alone get that a year. Where's the money to stop that? * https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.h...
  - chki 10y ago
    Wait, you think zika has been "purposefully transplanted to push the <<hype machine>>"? What does that mean? Do you think there is an evil pharmaceutical concern out there that just infects people with a virus? And by the way: The non-lethal symptoms that are "not proven" include serious birth defects which means infected mothers can not get healthy children for an unknown time period. I think it might therefore be seen as a serious health issue.
    - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
      There are hundreds if not thousands of diseases that cause vastly more harm to humans than Zika, but the absurd level of fear-mongering and media sensationalism about Zika is really off the charts. We can be sure that once the pharma companies receive their corrupt tax payer dollars, the Zika story will evaporate from the airwaves, much like H1N1, Sars, Swine, etc.
blisterpeanuts 10y ago
Just more evidence that the primary vector of this terrible virus -- Aedes Aegyptus -- should be eradicated. I suggest a multi-pronged approach, including genetic modification such as Oxitec's sterility in males, release of natural predators such as dragonflies, and minimizing their habitats, i.e. standing water in urban areas. That last one is tricky, since A. Aegyptus is notoriously tenacious and can breed in a body of water as small as a bottle cap. But, we have to try.
- fernly 10y ago
  Well, ok, but... “The Zika epidemic has been very explosive, more explosive than we can account for by just mosquitoes and the level of Zika virus in human blood. Some other factor may be at play ... it could be some other bodily fluid – saliva, or urine or tears.”
  - dvh 10y ago
    Well stop crying then, ban all telenovelas.
- chakalakasp 10y ago
  I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
spitfire 10y ago
EDIT: Apparently this is already known. But it wasn't by me. I'll make a statement now, I expect Zika to be found in the Gonads. Specifically the testis. This is one transmission vector for Ebola - remains actively transmissible for at least 3 months.
- brandon272 10y ago
  Isn't this already known?
- phonon 10y ago
  Yes, it can be found in semen months after infection. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-longer-previously-thought/story?id=40764544 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-longer-...
nnq 10y ago
Hope this Zika thing scares enough people in the developed world to finally start a world-wide program for completely eradicating all disease bearing mosquitoes. And hopefully skip the damn talks about "the consequences of removing an entire species from the ecosystem for ever" (hint: humans already did this dozens of time by now, and now we can also froze some damn buzzers for future scientific study or whatever). Or about "developing a technology for completely exterminating a given species" (hint: besides being cool science, having a technology like this around and field tested could prove extremely f useful in quite a few scenarios). Is there anywhere I can put my money where my mouth is and donate money to someone developing this? Like, not "doing the science and if it works out use it in 10 years time in the field", but more like "engineering and testing as you go, with iterative deployment of multiple batches of 'extermination agent', be that genetically engineered mosquitoes or bacteria or viruses, until the damn things are completely gone, even if we don't get to publish many papers because we've been a bit sloppy in measurements and focused on engineering and not science"? P.S. And really, the best way to "investigate the consequences" of such a thing is to fucking do it an see what happens! Imagine the cool papers you'll publish about "ecological consequences of mosquito extermination" when you actually have data about this! And if you're into debating and stuff, you can debate "reintroducing mosquitoes into the ecosystem", and see how that goes after the picture of the "first kid dead from malaria after 10 years" shows up in the Times magazine. You can always keep a few mosquitoes in a lab in repopulate them afterwards if we turn out to actually need them.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  I really don't think an iterative approach is right when you're talking about exterminating a species. I'm worried about collateral damage. You don't want your virus jumping species, for instance.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I posed a question along these lines (eradicating mosquitoes) a couple weeks ago[1], and there were quite a few interesting responses regarding possible consequences, or lack thereof. Apparently it's been investigated quite a bit. The general consensus of the actual studies done on the topic, IIRC, is that eradicating mosquitoes shouldn't affect any ecosystem particularly harshly. For all the harm them do, I know I think (at this point) we would all be better off without them, even considering possible impacts to ecosystems. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323589

73 points by upen 10y ago

tezza 10y ago

"Cry into this jar and write your name on it." "I've printed a copy of my bill with the test lab fees in case you have trouble getting welled up"

ChrisClark 10y ago
As someone not in the US. What are the bills like for test labs?
- jonah 10y ago
  As an example, here are some price lists from a diagnostic laboratory in Arizona. https://www.sonoraquest.com/uploads/docs/Pricing_Tool_2014_012014.pdf https://www.sonoraquest.com/uploads/docs/Pricing_Tool_2014_0... https://www.sonoraquest.com/(S(cqosic2jgfo1us45at4h1xmh))/my-lab-request/my-lab-request-test-menu https://www.sonoraquest.com/(S(cqosic2jgfo1us45at4h1xmh))/my...
- ars 10y ago
  > As someone not in the US. What difference does US make? It's not something someone in the US would know. If someone is sick the CDC would do the testing, and they don't change. The only time you would have to pay is if you are doing it out of curiosity, and then you would have to pay if outside the US as well. No one in the US who is sick with Zika would ever pay those fees.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Actually, many lab tests charges are passed on to the patient: employment drug tests, std tests, PRN blood tests, etc etc. I don't believe the OP was asking about Zika in particular.
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Um... I've never been billed for an employment drug test or an employment background check and I've had several of both.
      - pscsbs 10y ago
        Probably because you or your employer have health insurance to cover the costs.
        ams6110 10y ago
        Health insurance would be unlikely to cover an employment drug screen. If you're not paying for it, the employer is. Same with the background check. And it makes sense that if the employer is requiring these things that they should pay for them. They get to expense it as an administrative cost of hiring.
        jacalata 10y ago
        Employers make employees pay for them often enough that many states have laws prohibiting it > Q: Can I make an applicant/employee pay for the costs involved in drug testing? A: There are certain states that specifically address this issue, and employers should familiarize themselves with their state requirements. For example, employers in New Jersey cannot make a candidate pay for his/her drug testing (or medical or other evaluations), unless the position they are applying for is that of a security guard. http://www.sbsofsa.com/Articles/Drug_Testing_FAQs.html http://www.sbsofsa.com/Articles/Drug_Testing_FAQs.html
        pluma 10y ago
        Wow, that's adding insult to injury. I mean, employee drug testing (outside a small number of specific fields and roles) is unthinkable enough as it is, but making the employee also pay for that kind of invasion of their privacy is just despicable.
msane 10y ago
Save this sort of comment for reddit
- themartorana 10y ago
  Save this sort of comment for yourself.

binalpatel 10y ago

Found this pretty informative answer to one of the questions I had (mainly, whether Zika had always been this bad, or had mutated in some way to make it worse). http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42891/did-the-zika-virus-mutate http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42891/did-the-zik... TLDR: It's likely it's spreading so quickly because there's no natural resistance in the areas where there have been outbreaks, though this isn't proven.

transfire 10y ago
It's spreading probably b/c it has been purposefully transplanted to push the hype machine. Not only is Zika non-lethal, they have yet to prove any link to any serious symptoms.* For the vast majority it is no worse than catching a cold and you are over it in a week, and subsequently immune. Hence it is it's own vaccine. All this hype is for various nefarious purposes of making $$$ (and possibly I fear testing DNA transmission). $1.9 billion for what? Toxoplasmosis is worse than Zika and 200,000 people in the U.S. alone get that a year. Where's the money to stop that? * https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624150813.h...
- chki 10y ago
  Wait, you think zika has been "purposefully transplanted to push the <<hype machine>>"? What does that mean? Do you think there is an evil pharmaceutical concern out there that just infects people with a virus? And by the way: The non-lethal symptoms that are "not proven" include serious birth defects which means infected mothers can not get healthy children for an unknown time period. I think it might therefore be seen as a serious health issue.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    There are hundreds if not thousands of diseases that cause vastly more harm to humans than Zika, but the absurd level of fear-mongering and media sensationalism about Zika is really off the charts. We can be sure that once the pharma companies receive their corrupt tax payer dollars, the Zika story will evaporate from the airwaves, much like H1N1, Sars, Swine, etc.

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

Just more evidence that the primary vector of this terrible virus -- Aedes Aegyptus -- should be eradicated. I suggest a multi-pronged approach, including genetic modification such as Oxitec's sterility in males, release of natural predators such as dragonflies, and minimizing their habitats, i.e. standing water in urban areas. That last one is tricky, since A. Aegyptus is notoriously tenacious and can breed in a body of water as small as a bottle cap. But, we have to try.

fernly 10y ago
Well, ok, but... “The Zika epidemic has been very explosive, more explosive than we can account for by just mosquitoes and the level of Zika virus in human blood. Some other factor may be at play ... it could be some other bodily fluid – saliva, or urine or tears.”
- dvh 10y ago
  Well stop crying then, ban all telenovelas.
chakalakasp 10y ago
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

spitfire 10y ago

EDIT: Apparently this is already known. But it wasn't by me. I'll make a statement now, I expect Zika to be found in the Gonads. Specifically the testis. This is one transmission vector for Ebola - remains actively transmissible for at least 3 months.

brandon272 10y ago
Isn't this already known?
phonon 10y ago
Yes, it can be found in semen months after infection. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-longer-previously-thought/story?id=40764544 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-longer-...

nnq 10y ago

Hope this Zika thing scares enough people in the developed world to finally start a world-wide program for completely eradicating all disease bearing mosquitoes. And hopefully skip the damn talks about "the consequences of removing an entire species from the ecosystem for ever" (hint: humans already did this dozens of time by now, and now we can also froze some damn buzzers for future scientific study or whatever). Or about "developing a technology for completely exterminating a given species" (hint: besides being cool science, having a technology like this around and field tested could prove extremely f useful in quite a few scenarios). Is there anywhere I can put my money where my mouth is and donate money to someone developing this? Like, not "doing the science and if it works out use it in 10 years time in the field", but more like "engineering and testing as you go, with iterative deployment of multiple batches of 'extermination agent', be that genetically engineered mosquitoes or bacteria or viruses, until the damn things are completely gone, even if we don't get to publish many papers because we've been a bit sloppy in measurements and focused on engineering and not science"? P.S. And really, the best way to "investigate the consequences" of such a thing is to fucking do it an see what happens! Imagine the cool papers you'll publish about "ecological consequences of mosquito extermination" when you actually have data about this! And if you're into debating and stuff, you can debate "reintroducing mosquitoes into the ecosystem", and see how that goes after the picture of the "first kid dead from malaria after 10 years" shows up in the Times magazine. You can always keep a few mosquitoes in a lab in repopulate them afterwards if we turn out to actually need them.

andrewflnr 10y ago
I really don't think an iterative approach is right when you're talking about exterminating a species. I'm worried about collateral damage. You don't want your virus jumping species, for instance.
kbenson 10y ago
I posed a question along these lines (eradicating mosquitoes) a couple weeks ago[1], and there were quite a few interesting responses regarding possible consequences, or lack thereof. Apparently it's been investigated quite a bit. The general consensus of the actual studies done on the topic, IIRC, is that eradicating mosquitoes shouldn't affect any ecosystem particularly harshly. For all the harm them do, I know I think (at this point) we would all be better off without them, even considering possible impacts to ecosystems. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323589