Intoduction to Smallpox

Carmel Lewis

Shared publicly  -  11:35 AM

 

A brief introduction to smallpox
Name of causative agent
 The Variola virus is the main causative agent of smallpox.
Variola Virus information:
 Double stranded DNA virus
The variola virus IS NOT a Retrovirus
[An RNA virus that inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the host cell in order to replicate, HIV is another example of a retrovirus]
•      Naked or Enveloped
 Naked
•      Formation of Provirus
 Smallpox does from a provirus but not in the usual manner. Instead of the provirus forming in the nucleus, smallpox forms a provirus in the cytoplasmic material of a cell.
Epidemiology:

•      Geographic Prevalence
 The last recorded case of smallpox was in 1978 in the UK. However the last natural occurring case was one year previous in Somalia.
Smallpox no longer naturally occurs
•      Average rates of infection
 The R0 number for smallpox was between 3 and 6.
However, as the disease is no longer naturally occurring there is no current rate of infection.
•      Reservoir
 Humans are the only known reservoir of this virus. No other species is yet to host smallpox.
•      Main transmission mode
 Face to face contact with an infected person was the most common transmission mode due to transference of the disease in droplets of saliva.
Other transmission modes can include contaminated clothing and bed linen.
Pathology:

•      Major tissues/organs affected
 The Skin is the most affected organ in the body with rashes and legions appearing all over the surface of the skin.
•      Major signs/symptoms
 The major symptoms of smallpox include backache, diarrhoea, fatigue and excessive bleeding.
After a week of contracting smallpox raised pink rashes and sores appear.
•      Sequalae?
 Smallpox can leave an infected human with severe scarring of the skin and other organs. It can also cause a swelling of the brain known as encephalitis.
In the most severe cases the end result can be death.
•      Latency? 2-15 days.
Treatment:

•      Main treatment methods
 Smallpox vaccines (Cowpox)
•      Typical length of treatment
 If the vaccine is given within 4 days of the disease becoming contracted there MAY be a chance of the illness becoming less severe or been prevented.
•      Prophylactic measures
 Social isolation is the most effective to measure to prevent contraction of the disease.

.

Read more

A brief introduction to smallpox
Name of causative agent
 The Variola virus is the main causative agent of smallpox.
Variola Virus information:
 Double stranded DNA virus
The variola virus IS NOT a Retrovirus
[An RNA virus that inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the host cell in order to replicate, HIV is another example of a retrovirus]
•      Naked or Enveloped
 Naked
•      Formation of Provirus
 Smallpox does from a provirus but not in the usual manner. Instead of the provirus forming in the nucleus, smallpox forms a provirus in the cytoplasmic material of a cell.
Epidemiology:

•      Geographic Prevalence
 The last recorded case of smallpox was in 1978 in the UK. However the last natural occurring case was one year previous in Somalia.
Smallpox no longer naturally occurs
•      Average rates of infection
 The R0 number for smallpox was between 3 and 6.
However, as the disease is no longer naturally occurring there is no current rate of infection.
•      Reservoir
 Humans are the only known reservoir of this virus. No other species is yet to host smallpox.
•      Main transmission mode
 Face to face contact with an infected person was the most common transmission mode due to transference of the disease in droplets of saliva.
Other transmission modes can include contaminated clothing and bed linen.
Pathology:

•      Major tissues/organs affected
 The Skin is the most affected organ in the body with rashes and legions appearing all over the surface of the skin.
•      Major signs/symptoms
 The major symptoms of smallpox include backache, diarrhoea, fatigue and excessive bleeding.
After a week of contracting smallpox raised pink rashes and sores appear.
•      Sequalae?
 Smallpox can leave an infected human with severe scarring of the skin and other organs. It can also cause a swelling of the brain known as encephalitis.
In the most severe cases the end result can be death.
•      Latency? 2-15 days.
Treatment:

•      Main treatment methods
 Smallpox vaccines (Cowpox)
•      Typical length of treatment
 If the vaccine is given within 4 days of the disease becoming contracted there MAY be a chance of the illness becoming less severe or been prevented.
•      Prophylactic measures
 Social isolation is the most effective to measure to prevent contraction of the disease.

Antibiotics

Carmel Lewis

Shared publicly  -  10:51 AM Antibiotics resistance (is) a “catastrophic threat” Do you agree or disagree?

Antibiotics are a type of medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms. Antibiotics have been around for centuries. Penicillin (a type of antibiotic) was discovered in 1928 by Sir Alexander Fleming, he noticed that some of the bacteria he was cultivating were unable to grow if a certain fungus was nearby. However it was not until 1940 that penicillin was purified and used as an antibiotic. Penicillin was widely used during World War 2 and was responsible for saving the lives of numerous soldiers (typesofbacteria.2013). Antibiotics work by interfering with certain aspects of bacterial cell growth or replication. There are many types of antibiotics, and different ones are effective against different parts of bacterium.

However it has become apparent that certain bacterial infections have become resistant to antibiotics that have previously been effective in treating them. Recently “dame sally” released a report stating antibiotic resistance has become a serious issue that we should take very seriously. She also said “if we don’t take action, then we may as well be back in an almost 19th century environment where infections kill us as a result of routine operations” (BBC.2013). Antibiotic resistance occurs when antibiotics no longer work against disease causing bacteria.

Due to this I believe that antibiotics should not be given out as easily, thus reducing the growth of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics only work on bacterial infections and not on viral infections such as the common cold. However many Doctors still give out courses of antibiotics to people suffering from viral infections. Overusing antibiotic drugs or giving them out incorrectly effectively teaches bacteria how to resist them. Scientific tests, reported in the respected journal Plus one, found high levels of potentially lethal staphylococcus bacteria and more than a third of these were resistant to commonly used antibiotic (PlusOne.2013).  A further study reinforces this previous scientific research that warns drug – resistant forms of bacteria are building because we are consuming so many antibiotics at home and in hospitals, then flushing them into our water system. There bacteria can “learn” how to become immune to them. Worse they are learning to resist once in our bodies due to been over prescribed. Every unnecessary prescription can increase chance of bacteria becoming resistant. In the future this could lead to thousands of people dyeing needlessly as their bodies are totally immune to any antibiotic that is given to treat them.

Another factor in why antibiotic resistance is on the increase is due to people not taking their full course of antibiotics correcting. Many people do not finish their course, do not take them at the correct times, or they drink alcohol whilst taking antibiotics (stops them working at all).  This can lead to certain types of antibiotics been ineffective for ever if patients fail to finish their courses. Bacteria are only wiped out if the full course is completed correctly. If the full course is not completed bacteria can be left behind and it is usually the strongest bacteria that are left (Guardian.2011). This bacterial can then mutate to form new bacteria that the antibiotic is no longer able to treat. Individuals who do not finish their course of antibiotic pose a huge danger to themselves. It will lead to them been unable to be treated for minor infections which could in turn kill them. It would also mean should they ever need an operation or organ transplant they may die as a result, as they may contract an infection whilst in hospital that is unable to be treated. This could lead to thousands if not millions of people dyeing needlessly (BBC.2013). Which in itself is a “catastrophic threat”?

Some on the antibiotics we humans use are also been given to animals. Scientists believe adding antibiotics to agriculture could have a significant effect to antibiotic resistance. In 1965 the “UK Agriculture Research Council” began hearing how organisms commonly found in animals had become resistant to certain antibiotics. This has led to many scientists believing antibiotic resistance can be passed from animal to human when we consume animal products. This again would mean us as humans regardless if we take our antibiotics correctly or not are at risk of becoming resistant to antibiotics. This means again we would die needlessly from common infections, causing a “catastrophic threat”.

Having examined some of the evidence it would seem that antibiotic resistance is a serious global problem that needs to be addressed quickly. If we as humans become resistant to antibiotics we as a population would rapidly decrease. This would be down to the fact a simple cut to finger could kill us, if it becomes infected as they will be no antibiotics available to treat the infection.  As the bacteria once inside our own bodies has learnt to mutate and our own natural resistance is no longer able to cope and fight these off.

Bibliography

BBC (2013). Antibiotics resistance 'as big a risk as terrorism' - medical chief [s.l]: BBC. [online] Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21737844 [Accessed 27 April 2013]

Guardian (2011). What danger will result from not completing a course of prescribed antibiotics? [s.l]: guardian. [online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1112,00.html [Accessed 15 May 2013]

Typesofbacteria (2012). When Were Antibiotics Discovered? [s.l]: typesofbacteria. [online]. Available from: http://www.typesofbacteria.co.uk/when-were-antibiotics-discovered.html [Accessed 15 May 2013]Read more

Antibiotics resistance (is) a “catastrophic threat” Do you agree or disagree?

Antibiotics are a type of medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms. Antibiotics have been around for centuries. Penicillin (a type of antibiotic) was discovered in 1928 by Sir Alexander Fleming, he noticed that some of the bacteria he was cultivating were unable to grow if a certain fungus was nearby. However it was not until 1940 that penicillin was purified and used as an antibiotic. Penicillin was widely used during World War 2 and was responsible for saving the lives of numerous soldiers (typesofbacteria.2013). Antibiotics work by interfering with certain aspects of bacterial cell growth or replication. There are many types of antibiotics, and different ones are effective against different parts of bacterium.

However it has become apparent that certain bacterial infections have become resistant to antibiotics that have previously been effective in treating them. Recently “dame sally” released a report stating antibiotic resistance has become a serious issue that we should take very seriously. She also said “if we don’t take action, then we may as well be back in an almost 19th century environment where infections kill us as a result of routine operations” (BBC.2013). Antibiotic resistance occurs when antibiotics no longer work against disease causing bacteria.

Due to this I believe that antibiotics should not be given out as easily, thus reducing the growth of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics only work on bacterial infections and not on viral infections such as the common cold. However many Doctors still give out courses of antibiotics to people suffering from viral infections. Overusing antibiotic drugs or giving them out incorrectly effectively teaches bacteria how to resist them. Scientific tests, reported in the respected journal Plus one, found high levels of potentially lethal staphylococcus bacteria and more than a third of these were resistant to commonly used antibiotic (PlusOne.2013).  A further study reinforces this previous scientific research that warns drug – resistant forms of bacteria are building because we are consuming so many antibiotics at home and in hospitals, then flushing them into our water system. There bacteria can “learn” how to become immune to them. Worse they are learning to resist once in our bodies due to been over prescribed. Every unnecessary prescription can increase chance of bacteria becoming resistant. In the future this could lead to thousands of people dyeing needlessly as their bodies are totally immune to any antibiotic that is given to treat them.

Another factor in why antibiotic resistance is on the increase is due to people not taking their full course of antibiotics correcting. Many people do not finish their course, do not take them at the correct times, or they drink alcohol whilst taking antibiotics (stops them working at all).  This can lead to certain types of antibiotics been ineffective for ever if patients fail to finish their courses. Bacteria are only wiped out if the full course is completed correctly. If the full course is not completed bacteria can be left behind and it is usually the strongest bacteria that are left (Guardian.2011). This bacterial can then mutate to form new bacteria that the antibiotic is no longer able to treat. Individuals who do not finish their course of antibiotic pose a huge danger to themselves. It will lead to them been unable to be treated for minor infections which could in turn kill them. It would also mean should they ever need an operation or organ transplant they may die as a result, as they may contract an infection whilst in hospital that is unable to be treated. This could lead to thousands if not millions of people dyeing needlessly (BBC.2013). Which in itself is a “catastrophic threat”?

Some on the antibiotics we humans use are also been given to animals. Scientists believe adding antibiotics to agriculture could have a significant effect to antibiotic resistance. In 1965 the “UK Agriculture Research Council” began hearing how organisms commonly found in animals had become resistant to certain antibiotics. This has led to many scientists believing antibiotic resistance can be passed from animal to human when we consume animal products. This again would mean us as humans regardless if we take our antibiotics correctly or not are at risk of becoming resistant to antibiotics. This means again we would die needlessly from common infections, causing a “catastrophic threat”.

Having examined some of the evidence it would seem that antibiotic resistance is a serious global problem that needs to be addressed quickly. If we as humans become resistant to antibiotics we as a population would rapidly decrease. This would be down to the fact a simple cut to finger could kill us, if it becomes infected as they will be no antibiotics available to treat the infection.  As the bacteria once inside our own bodies has learnt to mutate and our own natural resistance is no longer able to cope and fight these off.

Bibliography

BBC (2013). Antibiotics resistance 'as big a risk as terrorism' - medical chief [s.l]: BBC. [online] Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21737844 [Accessed 27 April 2013]

Guardian (2011). What danger will result from not completing a course of prescribed antibiotics? [s.l]: guardian. [online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1112,00.html [Accessed 15 May 2013]

Typesofbacteria (2012). When Were Antibiotics Discovered? [s.l]: typesofbacteria. [online]. Available from: http://www.typesofbacteria.co.uk/when-were-antibiotics-discovered.html [Accessed 15 May 2013]

Show lessAntibiotic resistance 'threat to UK'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21737844

Vaccines

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.

Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.

Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.

We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.
Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.
Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.
Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.
We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases.








Bibliography.
Who (2003) Infectious disease. Switzerland: Who. [Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunize (2011) Historic Dates and Events Related to Vaccines and Immunization. Atlanta: Immunization Action Coalition. [Online]. Available from: http://www.immunize.org/timeline/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Live strong (2013) The Pros & Cons of Vaccinating Children. [s.l.]. Li

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.
Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.
Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.
Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.
We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases.








Bibliography.
Who (2003) Infectious disease. Switzerland: Who. [Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunize (2011) Historic Dates and Events Related to Vaccines and Immunization. Atlanta: Immunization Action Coalition. [Online]. Available from: http://www.immunize.org/timeline/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Live strong (2013) The Pros & Cons of Vaccinating Children. [s.l.]. Livestrong. [online]. Available from http://www.livestrong.com/article/244854-the-pros-cons-of-vaccinating-children/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Netdoctor (2012) childhood vaccinations. London: Hearst Magazines UK. [online]. Available from: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/childhoodvaccinations.htm [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Who (2013). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Switzerland: Who. [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunizationinfo (2010). Vaccine effectiveness. [s.l.]: National Network for Immunization Information. [online]. Available from: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Bis.gov (2006). Infectious Diseases: preparing for the future Threats.UK: Department of trade and industry. [online]. Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/infectious-diseases/t1.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2013]
BBC (2006). Does the MMR Jab Cause Autism? [s.l.]: BBC. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml [Accessed 3 March 2013]Show less

vestrong. [online]. Available from http://www.livestrong.com/article/244854-the-pros-cons-of-vaccinating-children/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Netdoctor (2012) childhood vaccinations. London: Hearst Magazines UK. [online]. Available from: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/childhoodvaccinations.htm [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Who (2013). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Switzerland: Who. [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunizationinfo (2010). Vaccine effectiveness. [s.l.]: National Network for Immunization Information. [online]. Available from: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Bis.gov (2006). Infectious Diseases: preparing for the future Threats.UK: Department of trade and industry. [online]. Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/infectious-diseases/t1.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2013]
BBC (2006). Does the MMR Jab Cause Autism? [s.l.]: BBC. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml [Accessed 3 March 2013]Show less

Bibliography

BBC (2011) Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge. [s.l] BBC [online]. Avalible from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml [Accessed on 15 May 2013]

Hammond, E. and Ching, L. (2011) smallpox virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major review. Switzerland: Third World Network.

independent (2013) £80m wasted on smallpox terror threat. [s.l] The Independent [online]. Avalible from: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/80m-wasted-on-smallpox-terror-threat-8... [Accessed on 20 March 2013]

Nature (2011) WHO to decide Fate of smallpox stocks. [s.l] Nature [online].  Avalible from: www.nature.com/news/2011/110212/full/news.2011.288.html [Accessed on 20 march 2013]

After the eradication of smallpox

After the eradication of Smallpox!

Even though a deadline of 1993 was set two sanctioned repositories still remain. The WHO however has repeatedly pushed back the date due to pressure from developed countries; these include United States, who want to continue research on the virus.  However it is developing countries that would probably bear the brunt of any accidental release have long backed the destruction plan. They believe that Smallpox research is a dangerous luxury, as accidental release could be catastrophic. This has previously occurred when a photographer at Birmingham university accidently got the virus on her skin and died.  (BBC.2011)

Many scientists also argue that destroying the stocks would do little to protect the world from Smallpox, because it is now possible to recreate the virus from its genome. (naturenews.2011). If this is the case then there really is no need to keep the virus. Even though there are only a small amount of Labs that have the skills and resources to do so there are still labs that have the skills to do this more labs in fact than the number of known countries to have stocks of the Smallpox Virus.

For these reasons I strongly believe that Smallpox is not needed for the use of medical research and therefore should be destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110513/full/news.2011.288.html

Show lessBBC - History - British History in depth: Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourgebbc.co.uk

Should smallpox virus be destroyed

Carmel Lewis

Shared publicly  -  Yesterday 12:45 PM Should the remaining stocks of the Smallpox virus be destroyed?

As part of my course we have been asked to answer the following question. Using an article that has been given to me by my tutor and also using research that i have obtained myself I will try to answer the following question.

One of the longest and most contentious international policy debates has swirled around the question of whether to destroy the last known stocks of the smallpox (variola) virus, which are preserved at two World Health Organisation (WHO)-authorised repositories in Russia and the United States. Although smallpox was eradicated from the nature more than three decades ago concerns surfaced in the early 1990s that a few countries might have retained undeclared samples of the virus for biological warfare purposes. Because a smallpox outbreak would be a global public health emergency of major proportions, in 1990 the WHO approved a research program at the two authorised repositories to develop improved medical defences against the disease.

I was given an article titled “Smallpox Virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major Review, which was written by Edward Hammond with contributions from Lim Li Ching. Edward Hammond is an American policy researcher he relies heavily on government records obtained through the US freedom of information Act and other open government laws to conduct his research. As he uses these sources to carry out his work it cannot be trusted. Even though governments claim the records are open and freely available they are still able to control the information that is available to the public. As this research looks at the smallpox been used as bioweapon the information available from governments will be heavily censured as is most information regarding terror threat.

Hammond and Ching (2011) believe that since the eradication of Smallpox was over three decades ago, there is no real reason to retain stock of the virus, as it is no longer required for research as vaccines and anti-viral drugs for the treatment of Smallpox have already been established.

Since this research cannot be 100% trusted I have decided to use my own reason to answer the above question and discuss whether the Smallpox virus should be retained or not, and also the threat of the Smallpox Virus being used as a bioweapon in the future.Read more

Should the remaining stocks of the Smallpox virus be destroyed?

As part of my course we have been asked to answer the following question. Using an article that has been given to me by my tutor and also using research that i have obtained myself I will try to answer the following question.

One of the longest and most contentious international policy debates has swirled around the question of whether to destroy the last known stocks of the smallpox (variola) virus, which are preserved at two World Health Organisation (WHO)-authorised repositories in Russia and the United States. Although smallpox was eradicated from the nature more than three decades ago concerns surfaced in the early 1990s that a few countries might have retained undeclared samples of the virus for biological warfare purposes. Because a smallpox outbreak would be a global public health emergency of major proportions, in 1990 the WHO approved a research program at the two authorised repositories to develop improved medical defences against the disease.

I was given an article titled “Smallpox Virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major Review, which was written by Edward Hammond with contributions from Lim Li Ching. Edward Hammond is an American policy researcher he relies heavily on government records obtained through the US freedom of information Act and other open government laws to conduct his research. As he uses these sources to carry out his work it cannot be trusted. Even though governments claim the records are open and freely available they are still able to control the information that is available to the public. As this research looks at the smallpox been used as bioweapon the information available from governments will be heavily censured as is most information regarding terror threat.

Hammond and Ching (2011) believe that since the eradication of Smallpox was over three decades ago, there is no real reason to retain stock of the virus, as it is no longer required for research as vaccines and anti-viral drugs for the treatment of Smallpox have already been established.

Since this research cannot be 100% trusted I have decided to use my own reason to answer the above question and discuss whether the Smallpox virus should be retained or not, and also the threat of the Smallpox Virus being used as a bioweapon in the future.