
Evidence of Zika virus found in tears - upen
http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/4952.html
======
binalpatel
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-
zik...](http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42891/did-the-zika-virus-
mutate)

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.

------
spitfire
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.

~~~
phonon
Yes, it can be found in semen months after infection.

[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-
longer-...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zika-virus-remain-semen-longer-
previously-thought/story?id=40764544)

------
blisterpeanuts
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
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
Well stop crying then, ban all telenovelas.

------
nnq
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.

~~~
bad_user
That's a really unhealthy mentality. There are aprox 3500 species of
mosquitoes, out of which about 100 draw human blood. And first of all it's
probably really hard to target just specific species. And if the solution is
chemical or some sort of virus, then how do you know it won't spread to other
insects?

Mosquitoes are pollinators, also being a food source for birds and fish. If
mosquitoes vanish, you could end up with an ecological disaster, remember that
we've been exterminating bees as well.

But OK, mother nature can still cope with a species vanishing, but this means
another insect will probably fill the vacuum left by exterminating mosquitoes.
How do you know that the insect taking the place of mosquitoes won't be much
worse? You know, nature has a strange habit of fucking up our plans.

It's also important to remember that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old
and we are fucking it up, destabilizing it in just a couple hundred. And "
_just fucking do it_ " is not science.

~~~
saiya-jin
I presume seeing somebody very close dying from dengue/cerebral malaria/etc
would change your perspective of "this ain't science". But that won't happen
to many in 1st world countries, would it. Few millions of poor dying somewhere
far away ain't that much of a hot issue to you?

mankind wants to eradicate all diseases for example. don't you think that they
also have their role in the food chain, albeit probably more on the single
cellular scale? why not protect those?

It's us vs them, due to global warming they are spreading to new places all
the time. nobody is talking about removing all mosquitoes from the face of the
earth, just those 100 you mentioned. Will there be some mess and consequences
from it? of course, there are always consequences, even if you fart in the
wind. considering the clusterf __k we are heading to in terms of destroying
the nature, this is peanuts with very real positive and immediate results to
poorest and weakest of this world. count me in.

~~~
bad_user
I had my grandfather dying from a bacterial infection developed while
hospitalized, not responding well to antibiotics. I know how that feels.

Having close people die does change our perception, but science requires
objectivity and a move like this requires careful planning, as you have to
admit, we aren't known for making the best choices in healthcare.

And an ecological disaster probably won't happen, but lets consider that it
does for the sake of argument, having as result a much lower yield for the
crops in Africa or the rest of the world for a while. It's not impossible and
the world's supply of food is actually very fragile. So you save millions from
the spread of viruses, but then starve them to death.

I'm not against killing all mosquitoes, I'm just against doing it without
thoroughly researching the effects and having a prepared contingency plan.

------
tezza
"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
As someone not in the US. What are the bills like for test labs?

~~~
ars
> 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
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
Um... I've never been billed for an employment drug test or an employment
background check and I've had several of both.

~~~
pscsbs
Probably because you or your employer have health insurance to cover the
costs.

~~~
ams6110
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
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
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.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I really hate having to pay for tenant background checks now. It gives the
background check company free reign to change whatever they want and they are
friggin expensive! My state allows landlords to pass down the _exact_ cost of
the background check to the tenant which really isn't fair IMO, it should be
considered a cost of doing business.

I solved that problem by purchasing a house. Landlords around here have gotten
crazy since the housing bubble burst.

