Moderator: Moderators
Anonymous_Coward wrote:I would like to see a list of the so-called "evidence" of human transmission. This "evidence" is alluded to in many articles, and even some official government documents. However, no one has ever felt it necessary to actually describe what constitutes this "evidence."
Would anyone care to list it here?
Extremeophile wrote:I recall Peter posted in another thread a list of "evidence". I believe the spores on gear and clothing was reported in an abstract of a talk given at the Pittsburg WNS meeting in 2010, but nothing has been published in peer reviewed literature.
Just as there's not 100% proof that people spread the disease, there's also not 100% proof that people do not spread the disease. I may be labeled a heretic and cast out of the caving community for saying this, but I don't think we should be putting so much energy and focus on the possibility of human transmission. This is a debate that we could loose as the science develops. If the sole argument for continued access to caves is that humans can not possibly carry the disease, and then it's shown that we can (even under very contrived circumstances), then we loose credibility.
The message needs to focus on the facts that there are a multitude of important reasons to continue allowing cave access, that it's clearly somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible for humans to spread Gd, and that proper managment (e.g. decon, local gear, selective closure of significant bat sites, etc.) effectively minimizes what little risk exists. We need to emphasize that blanket closure is not a balanced approach to wildlife management, and there are many unintended harms.
Extremeophile wrote:Just as there's not 100% proof that people spread the disease, there's also not 100% proof that people do not spread the disease. I may be labeled a heretic and cast out of the caving community for saying this, but I don't think we should be putting so much energy and focus on the possibility of human transmission. This is a debate that we could loose as the science develops. If the sole argument for continued access to caves is that humans can not possibly carry the disease, and then it's shown that we can (even under very contrived circumstances), then we loose credibility.
DeanWiseman wrote:I promise to not label you a heretic, as many share your view. However, I do disagree that it is not in our best interest to continue this debate. I think these discussions, in a sort of way, are a "peer review" not unlike certain discussions which occur in Open Access Journals (i.e. PloS ONE)... everyone has a certain expertise, and good science should withstand criticism.
Secondly, I think it IS important to point out the Research Community's shortcomings when it comes to the type of work they are publishing. A really, really big gap in the knowledge about WNS is what the relative transmission risk is from humans. Having a handle on just that would give us a real benefit in terms of how much effort should be devoted at harsh decontamination and/or quarantine policies, and will help policy-makers craft (hopefully) well-reasoned policies.
BrianC wrote: and so we continue.
wyandottecaver wrote:
Therefore the discussion of the science of human transmission is mostly irrelevant to the discussion of WNS policy. The CBD has had great impact on policy with virtually no real science. What is going to be relevant is making sure the policy makers with actual power are aware of us as a vocal and active interest group that isn't going away.
wyandottecaver wrote:Peter had an outstanding article in the NSS News a while back clearly listing and documenting the actual studies and data available. I wont repeat it here but encourage EVERYONE to actually read it.
Return to White Nose Syndrome (WNS)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users