Foot and Mouth Crisis effects tanks.

[Cos]

Here's one.....

Tankfest 2001 notice

[Bakker@home]

Bummer !

I was planning to take a trip to england just to be at the tankfest.

Oh well, guess i'll just have to visit dusty museums.

Grtz, S Bakker

[Mattias]

I read in an armour forum that it was due to the fear of an obscure string of the malady, called "track and muzzle decease"

Jokes aside, I was trying to make up my mind about going too, pity it was canceled...

M.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Ex Bellator]

Topic: Foot and Mouth Crisis effects tanks.

In further a attempts to stop the spread of the disease the British Government has announced there is to be a new cull of healthy tanks in a field in Devon, mainly Challenger Mk2s I hear. The poor things will be set on fire after a special S.A.S. trained Tank Vet has culled them, simply by pointing out that BTS has no plans to release a modern version of CMBO in which they could be included. This will cause them to quickly expire of depression. Very humane according to a Defence Ministry spokesman.

[Chupacabra]

In response, PM Tony Blair postponed the general election until September 12, saying that to do otherwise would be "an insult to Great Britain's tank farmers."

William Hague, speaking through The Spectator, called Blair's announcement "that of a man running scared."

[Michael Dorosh]

We tried to get the British to stop sending troops to Alberta for training exercises here because of the disease.

NO ONE has ever answered me this - if the disease runs its course in two weeks and is not fatal, nor does it affect humans in any way, why do the animals need to be destroyed?

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

NO ONE has ever answered me this - if the disease runs its course in two weeks and is not fatal, nor does it affect humans in any way, why do the animals need to be destroyed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It very rarely infects across to humans (only a few documented cases), but it is extremely contagious to livestock, and causes a high mortality rate in younger animals.

btw...I did a search

Mace

[Lorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace:

It very rarely infects across to humans (only a few documented cases), but it is extremely contagious to livestock, and causes a high mortality rate in younger animals.

btw...I did a search

Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Mace,

Two questions:

1) Since it isn't really fatal to adult animals, why destory them?

2) What has a higher mortality rate among young animals? The disease? or being shot reguardless?

Lorak

[GriffinCheng+]

I shall try and these are from the news:

1. Even if the stock survive the infection, they will pose no further economic value cause further feeding would not gain their normal weight back.

2. The infection itself is very leathal to young animal. Even though vaccine are available to prevent the stock from infection. However, the vaccine only effective for 6 months and thus is too costy.

Griffin.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

And now for the radical view!

Its funny how we spend Billions of Dollars to combat a disease that rarely effects humans, and we will wholesale slaughter hundreds of thousand of healthy animals to prevent it from spreading. Yet there are millions of people walking around with AIDS that have the potential to infect us all with a life threatening disease. What action are the Gov't taking againsty AIDS?

Seems to me that the Government needs to prioritse the public spending!

CDIC

BTW - Hi Mom !

[GriffinCheng+]

CDIC, you know the price of the AIDS-treating drugs, especially the promising "cocktail theapy" are very expensive and Brazil government "copy" the drug and treat their patients at a fraction of "market" price.

Griffin.

P.S. Hi Mon!

[Michael Dorosh]

AIDs, in the majority of cases, is self-inflicted. Unsafe sex and dirty needles. It is unfortunate that some get infected at the dentist, etc., but far better the money is spent on cancer research - the big killer.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Michael you are quite correct, cancer would be a better benefactor for funding, as would a number of good causes - I used AIDS as a comparison because it is contageous and speads easily like F&M. The Gov't action in its attempts to control F&M seems to be misguided. Since F&M poses no serious threat to human health we can only assume the action is to prevent Farmers losing profits due to lower yields - but then the wholesale slaughter would contradict that since many Farmers are claiming bancrupcy as a result of F&M and the culling.

Questions should be asked how the disease can develop in a "Modern European country" with so called high standards of hygene and modern farming methods. Yet the underdeveloped countries have not been infected?

Food for thought.....literaly.

CDIC

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

Michael etc.

Food for thought.....literaly.

CDIC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more.

[GriffinCheng+]

CDIC, yeah, same for Mad Cow Disease which is haunting Western Europe and America.

[McAuliffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

AIDs, in the majority of cases, is self-inflicted....(...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cannot believe, I have to read things like this on this forum...Hope someone knows what to do with this...Matt !!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

Questions should be asked how the disease can develop in a "Modern European country" with so called high standards of hygene and modern farming methods. Yet the underdeveloped countries have not been infected?

Food for thought.....literaly.

CDIC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two years ago, I was visiting, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia. Besides paying USD 100 each time when crossing the border, the car had to be desinfected due to a MFC.

Last year, in Kwa-Zulu Natal, (South-Africa) the desease only could be contained by a large vaccination-operation, as they found out that killing all the lifestock in the rural villages would mean catastrophy for the local people.

Cannot speak for other developping countries, but I can imagine MFD is allways somewhere around.

Hi Mom !

Hey...what happened to the spelling checker ?

[Mattias]

I’m with you McAuliffe, the callosity that pops up on this forum now and then can be breath taking at times.

This generally ill informed ranting gives me shivers.

M.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

Since F&M poses no serious threat to human health we can only assume the action is to prevent Farmers losing profits due to lower yields - but then the wholesale slaughter would contradict that since many Farmers are claiming bancrupcy as a result of F&M and the culling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a contradiction at all. Think about it for a minute. Cull your herds immediately, and you lose profits in the short term, and only in the infected areas. Let the disease continue unchecked and it A) spreads to previously uninfected areas and infects multiple generations of livestock, making the problem longterm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Questions should be asked how the disease can develop in a "Modern European country" with so called high standards of hygene and modern farming methods. Yet the underdeveloped countries have not been infected?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F&M is rampant in underdeveloped countries, it just doesn't get reported. There's a major outbreak in Argentina at the moment and it's indemic in many African and Asian nations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Originally posted by GriffithCheng+:

CDIC, yeah, same for Mad Cow Disease which is haunting Western Europe and America.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no BSE in America.

Not gonna comment on Mr. Dorosh's views on AIDS because they piss me off. Whoops, I guess that was a comment. Oh well.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Chupacabra ]

[GriffinCheng+]

What I was trying to say was the fear of BSE caused by the outbreaks in UK and France.

Hi mom!

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak:

Yes Mace,

Two questions:

1) Since it isn't really fatal to adult animals, why destory them?

2) What has a higher mortality rate among young animals? The disease? or being shot reguardless?

Lorak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) & 2) It would be a waste of time to only kill the younger animals in the herd: where a case is found all the livestock in the immediate (ie farm) and surrounding area has to be slaughtered and their carcasses burnt and buried, to ensure that the disease in that area is eliminated.

Any animals not killed and left to die of the disease on its own can still spread foot and mouth. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective. Perhaps the vaccine has a part to play, but in itself it is not a viable method of eliminating foot and mouth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Gov't action in its attempts to control F&M seems to be misguided. Since F&M poses no serious threat to human health we can only assume the action is to prevent Farmers losing profits due to lower yields - but then the wholesale slaughter would contradict that since many Farmers are claiming bancrupcy as a result of F&M and the culling.

Questions should be asked how the disease can develop in a "Modern European country" with so called high standards of hygene and modern farming methods. Yet the underdeveloped countries have not been infected?

Food for thought.....literaly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While foot and mouth is on the rampage in one European country, that is enough to put a question mark against ALL European countires who want to export livestock or meat outside the European Union. It is not so much a case of farmers getting lower yields: farmers just go out of business, farm workers are made redundant, tourists stay away from the rural areas etc etc.

As to why foot and mouth has spread, I think that the two key problems are lack of abattoirs, meaning that animals travel further to be slaughtered, and secondly farmers travelling dozens and dozens of miles to markets in another county, their livestock getting into contact with other livestsock from the other side of the country, and then driving back to their farms again. It's a recipe for disaster.

[Wesreidau]

Dorosh I will comment because those comments piss me off.

The MAJORITY of aids cases in the world today AREN'T caused by the laxness of the person who has it but by simply inheriting it. Millions of people have Aids in Africa from their parents, many of whom are dead and dying.

I find it pretty disgusting to write off their suffering. What is worse is that the obstinate drug industry won't help treat these people cheaply. Here's an

OXFAM link on the issue.

What I find particularly disgusting is that Pharmas say they must protect their R&D investment, yet a LOT of the money that went into discovering these drugs came from taxpayers!

Couldn't leave this point unsanswered

PeterNZ

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer:

Dorosh I will comment because those comments piss me off.

The MAJORITY of aids cases in the world today AREN'T caused by the laxness of the person who has it but by simply inheriting it. Millions of people have Aids in Africa from their parents, many of whom are dead and dying.

I find it pretty disgusting to write off their suffering. What is worse is that the obstinate drug industry won't help treat these people cheaply. Here's an

OXFAM link on the issue.

What I find particularly disgusting is that Pharmas say they must protect their R&D investment, yet a LOT of the money that went into discovering these drugs came from taxpayers!

Couldn't leave this point unsanswered

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had hoped to create some dialogue on that point; excellent reply, Peter. I was obviously thinking in terms of North America which is admittedly short sighted. My view is that here (if you can disregard Africa, which I don't believe - but for purposes of this discussion I'll continue) AIDs has become a "glamour" disease that attracts a lot of attention out of proportion to its effects - cancer still kills many more people in North America, yet AIDs seems to get more attention, and possibly more money.

EDIT - I'll add that Entertainment Weekly has an annual article on people who died of the disease; they don't do the same for cancer. Why the special attention?

EDIT - Also, apologies to those I've "pissed off"; didn't mean to be merely inflammatory. I appreciate insights like PeterNZ's - we are all here to learn from each other, or should be. I am obviously misinformed - which is not a sin. Feel free to inform me.

Will check out the link you provide - I am with you regarding pharmaceutical companies. As a lifelong asthma sufferer, there were periods in which I had no medical coverage and could not afford basic medicines that are essential to my well being if not survival. Luckily that condition did not last long. The situation is no doubt worse in other countries; I thank my lucky stars I live in Canada in cases like that.

I do have to ask though - how did AIDs spread amongst the parents of these peoples in Africa? I have no doubt thousands, perhaps millions, may be infected without knowing it; are there any statistics regarding the number of people knowingly infected who are opting to have children?

I certainly don't advocate ceasing research on the problem, and it is in our interest here in North America to help people on the other side of the world. But if it comes at the expense of other, more widespread diseases, I'm afraid hard lines have to be drawn. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I would draw that line at cancer. Only so many dollars to go around. (EDIT - of course we need to continue research on AIDs, I would not suggest otherwise, but should it attract research dollars out of proportion to its prominence, simply because here in North America it kills off more Hollywood celebrities than other diseases?) Maybe if we stopped paying spoiled college students (EDIT - or high school dropouts for that matter) tens of millions of dollars to play baseball, (or for that matter, billions of dollars buying tanks and machineguns so we can sell them to foreign powers, and then spend billions more going to keep the peace between those same foreign powers) we would be able to devote the resources that every disease, from the common cold, to AIDs, deserve.

EDITS for minor spelling and grammar errors also.

The whole system is out of whack; maybe we need to concentrate on promoting healthy lifestyles - and I am talking about cancer, not AIDs, but that applies to both. Ban cigarettes entirely, stop subsidizing people who live on diets of junk food and refuse to exercise, things of that nature. It is nice to have individual freedoms, but people who choose to endanger their own lives, and the lives of others, and expect others to have to pay for those mistakes - it is hard to understand how things have progressed to this point.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Well I dunno about all these sideline concerns, but reading the thread title, I was wondering if there is any danger of Mad Tank disease? I suppose one should always practice safe hull down positions.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Wesreidau]

Understand your points M.D, I was a bit reactionary

As for the high-profile of Aids, you can't avoid that I'm affraid. I think in a way it's partly due to the way the disease was first discovered and the real lack of publicity at the start.

As for Africa, I'm not sure how it started but it spreads through unsafe sex. In particular in some countries you get the men off having it with prostitutes or mistresses then bringing it home. It doesn't need very many people to do this before you have a problem. Would happen here in the west too but we have better access to condoms.

I agree Cancer, relatively, is a bigger problem. I think piles is put into researching this 'western' disease (as many would put it) already.

I'm not really an expert on it all.

ok, back to work

yes, it is Easter Friday

PeterNZ

(see you all at e3?)

[Chupacabra]

It's also important to note, IMO, that many forms of cancer are more or less self-imposed as well. For example, most lung/mouth/respiratory tract cancers are caused by smoking. Most malignant melanomas are caused by people spending too much time out in the sun with not enough protection. Does that mean we shouldn't treat them?

At some point I think we (as a society) have to just say: okay, these are all horrible diseases (AIDS, cancer, CJD, whatever) which affect millions of people, and a cure should be found. No matter what the cause.