- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fourth Pregnant Zika in the US confirmed: New York City
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:17 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:17 pm to lsupride87
I have a feeling in Brazil the baby is born, sent home, and that is that.
0
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:21 pm to lsupride87
This link gives the same exact number (25,000 per year) but says it's relatively rare....
Microcephaly is relatively rare, affecting about 25,000 children in the U.S. each year.
And according to the CDC....
LINK
Microcephaly is relatively rare, affecting about 25,000 children in the U.S. each year.
And according to the CDC....
quote:
Microcephaly is not a common condition. State birth defects tracking systems have estimated that microcephaly ranges from 2 babies per 10,000 live births to about 12 babies per 10,000 live births in the Unites States.1
LINK
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:22 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:That is relatively rare and even 5 thousand a year in Brazil would still be relatively rare.
This link gives the same exact number (25,000 per year) but says it's relatively rare....
This post was edited on 1/29/16 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:30 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:32 pm to buckeye_vol
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/2/20 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:34 pm to lsupride87
quote:Yeah but I'm assuming these Brazilian cases are more likely to be birth cases. And I'm using more conservative estimates given the Zika virus is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, 1200 would be a lower bound of expectation, and you may be right, a higher number may be more realistic.
10,000 is what is diagnosed AT BIRTH. 25,000 are diagnosed a year in the US because at birth the doctor might not notice
BUT even using that lower bound, the evidence is not near as alarming as the fear-mongering would suggest.
This post was edited on 1/29/16 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:40 pm to buckeye_vol
One thing that is certain is that there's no shortage of cases to choose from. Brazilian newspapers are reporting that approximately 200 cases of pregnant women with Zika are being diagnosed/week.
Assuming they bring their babies to term, there won't be a shortage of fresh data.
LINK. Yes it's breitbart- only reason I linked it is because it links mentioned Brazilian newspapers.
Assuming they bring their babies to term, there won't be a shortage of fresh data.
LINK. Yes it's breitbart- only reason I linked it is because it links mentioned Brazilian newspapers.
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:42 pm to Darth_Vader
No kidding. Doesn't this virus not really hurt anyone unless you're very young, old, or pregnant? How would anyone know they had it before it was too late
This post was edited on 1/29/16 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:46 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:And I don't doubt that this will show that there is a real cause for concern. But I also think we will find that some of the fears wrote overblown (i.e., increased risk BUT not a guarantee).
One thing that is certain is that there's no shortage of cases to choose from. Brazilian newspapers are reporting that approximately 200 cases of pregnant women with Zika are being diagnosed/week.
Posted on 1/29/16 at 1:57 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:I agree. I think it will be like many other fears in the first trimester. Nobody wants to get flu, cold, chickenpox etc etc in the developing stages either. But we are used to that risk so it does not cause fear mongering
And I don't doubt that this will show that there is a real cause for concern. But I also think we will find that some of the fears wrote overblown (i.e., increased risk BUT not a guarantee).
Posted on 1/29/16 at 2:19 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
I've read that some feel that this is being purposefully overblown as a way to torpedo the Olympics.
Evil Big Pharma and Communist overlords are doing this to scare people into believing in global warming and wanting new vaccines they don't need!!!
Posted on 1/29/16 at 2:34 pm to Dr RC
Don't they call them 'pinheads?' They used too. Not sure what caused them a long time ago.
Posted on 1/29/16 at 3:15 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Is this thing only spread by mosquito's? What about human to human transmission?
They think this poor guy gave it to his wife.
LINK
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:33 am to Sisyphus
Remember when swine flu was going to be disastrous , then bird flu, then ebola, etc.....
Posted on 1/30/16 at 6:38 am to Kujo
We have Brazilian offices and their leadership were here in Greenville, SC last week. I asked them about it, and while none of them are wanting to have a baby they were all pretty concerned and said it is definitely going to change some lives in their office. Brazil is apparently telling them to wait until 2018 to have children.
My wife is pregnant with twins and is a mosquito magnet, but thankfully will be in the third trimester (and possibly bed rest) before mosquito season here. I did win a trip to Puerto Rico on Presidents Club we can't attend because of timing, and the President of our company was suggesting he might strongly encourage pregnant women to not come on the trip anyways.
My wife is pregnant with twins and is a mosquito magnet, but thankfully will be in the third trimester (and possibly bed rest) before mosquito season here. I did win a trip to Puerto Rico on Presidents Club we can't attend because of timing, and the President of our company was suggesting he might strongly encourage pregnant women to not come on the trip anyways.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News