I thought I had dengue fever in 2011. Mosquitos had taken up living in my bathroom during a drought. At night they swarmed my bedroom.
An interesting read on this subject (Could Dengue Spread in a Warming World?) can be found here - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/11/could-dengue-spread-in-a-warming-world/.
If you disagree with the article, provide the facts that support your position, not opinion.
1
Everything on that website is to soothe people worried about what we're doing to the planet. But here's one paper - note what the abstract says about the United States. The title is "The History of Dengue in the United States and its Recent Emergence" --- here's the abstract read it and the whole paper ---
"Dengue virus (DENV) is the most common and widespread vector-borne arbovirus in the world, and over the past 30 years, there has been a dramatic increase in incidence and geographic spread. Considering the difficulty of preventing infections and consequence of severe disease, it is important to reflect on the history of dengue in the United States and focus attention on its recent re-emergence. In this paper, we report the historical significance of dengue outbreaks in the USA between 1780 and 1945, along with the elimination strategies of the vector mosquito, Aedes aegypti. We then detail the re-emergence of dengue into the USA between 1999 and today and discuss future strategies for detection and control."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40475-013-0008-1
I lived in Manila for a few years and felt safe from tropical diseases despite a lot of travel. We boiled and filtered drinking water, lived in a new, air-conditioned high-rise in Makati, and rode in armored, air-con vans to and from the embassy. Yet, nothing could spare me from the day-time mosquitos when I was on airport duty for the arrival of the Secretary of State. Two weeks before my wife and I were due to return to Washington, I must have been bitten. Ten days later I began to feel like I had the flu. A visit to the emergency room and a blood test revealed that I had two strains of Dengue fever. By then my skin had reddish-purple lesions and I felt weak and awful. No strength; no energy. The doctor gave be antibiotics to ward of opportunistic bacteria but there was not "cure" for Dengue. My body would have to ride it out. That took about six weeks. Gradually, I regained strength and returned to a normal state but Dengue had left a mark. I've read about it and about the neurological impact it can have on the brain and nervous system. It kills mostly infants and elderly people with compromised immune systems but it can surely make life for the average healthy person an unpleasant trial. No telling what it did to my brain but I'm still writing and working out and enjoying life twenty years after my encounter with Dengue.
2
usually the first infection isn't life threatening but subsequent infections with different subtypes. In some, the body's own immune system overreacts to the second infection and the immune syatem does the killing not the virus itself. So much for Intelligent Design.
1
From looking at the map I am glad to see that residents of the "Southern Strategy" will be taking the brunt of this scourge. I will be dead for sure, but when reading articles like this I think of my two-year-old grandson in Los Angeles and just want to cry when I envision the world he will inherit.
Hoping your grandson grows up in a place less likely to rejoice in other's misfortune, combined with victim-blaming.
"Vermont Communities Brace For Flooding As Record Warmth Forecast
By HENRY EPP • FEB 20, 2018"
https://www.vpr.org/post/vermont-communities-brace-flooding-record-warmth-forecast
Not wanting to trivialize dengue fever, but according to the article, over half the world's current population lives in areas where there is a risk of dengue fever, that's about 3.5 billion people. The annual number of people who contract dengue is 100 million and there are 10k deaths. That means individuals in risk prone areas have slightly less than 3% risk of getting dengue and .0003% chance of death.
Not good of course. But with population growth and more urbanization, by 2080 I suspect the number of cases -- barring new ways to combat the mosquito and the disease -- will at least double even if the risk level does not.
And quite frankly I can't tell how much the risk will increase if you live in Nashville say, from 2015 to 2080.
But if we know that regardless of climate change that an increasing population and greater urbanization will lead to more cases -- is it smarter to invest $$$ available for combating dengue to keeping the globe from warming -- or to find a cure for the disease and/or eradicate the mosquito? Isn't that the ultimate policy question? So if you add all the various diseases and other ills together that might be affected by increased temps, would you rather take the money available to combat those ills and solve those individual problems, or stop the climate from changing -- assuming that it is. Of course you can use the walk and chew gum at the same time response, but in the real world there are finite resources.
2
@Ralphie - sure. Save money by keeping the cause of damage in place. Spend what we "save" by racing around fixing what breaks.
So how would you balance the need for money when:
a) dengue and other diseases all spread and need curing
b) warming keeps increasing and spreading vectors for a).
c) flood damages continue to increase (more ocean means more flood, more rain means more flood).
Replacing our aging, polluting energy systems will help us to save money that could go to curing some of those diseases. It would also lessen the incidence of respiratory illnesses. It would reduce future infrastructure damages from flooding. It would reduce crop damage from heat, rainfall intensification, etc... It would save us some military $$$ when we can tell the Middle East we don't care about their feuds any more.
Bjorn Lomberg gets paid to make those "let's spend on repairing damage only - instead of investing in stopping the cause of damage", and his numbers never made a lick of sense.
The ultimate policy question is "how to keep people well, healthy and safe" and there's not one answer. But addressing the energy issue, especially when it's a technological one and the replacements are available, is a very sensible part of any investment strategy. We can replace fossil fuel and gain multiple benefits and avoid multiple, increasing damages.
Your suggested approach is like just repainting a water-damaged wall each time it rains - it doesn't make things better.
B Fagan If we knew two things -- that stopping warming was a magic bullet that would cure all ills, and that warming was definitely occurring and we could stop it, then I wouldn't disagree. But, I don't agree that we have definite proof that we are warming abnormally.
And while temp is a major factor in dengue, it's been around from before the industrial age. As I pointed out, even if there is no warming, the number of cases will increase regardless due to population growth, unless we eradicate the disease. Africa isn't going to cool down. So in the case of dengue and other infectious diseases just fighting global warming won't lower the rate and the number of cases will go up due to population growth. And it may spread regardless due to greater international travel.
Now if we could somehow switch over to cleaner energy without blowing up our economy, then hey, nothing wrong with taking precautions and we will have to replace fossil fuels some day. But there is no free lunch and solar and wind aren't going to replace fossil fuels anytime soon. Throw nuclear into the equation and you've got a better shot.
But limiting impact of warming makes more sense to me. Example -- hurricanes. Let's say they will definitely increase if the globe warms. But we'll still have massive hurricanes regardless so better buildings on higher ground is a better solution. And the amt of future damage is dependent on population growth and where and if hurricanes strike.
Ralphie, you are simply incorrect that we don't have proof that we are warming and are doing so because of humanity's use of fossil fuels. Period. Nuclear isn't fossil, so I am strongly in favor of keeping existing ones running, but the future tech that's promised will have to compete where solar, wind, storage, demand management and efficiency will make its economics harder to pull off. --- Transitioning from fossil fuels won't be a magic bullet for everything. It will just improve air quality, water quality, lower the incidence of respiratory diseases, end global dependence on fuels from awful countries, remove petro-politics, allow us to reduce our military spending on same, reduce future damage to trillions of dollars of infrastructure along oceans and rivers, reduce damage from lowered pH in surface waters, reduce risk of decreased agricultural productivity due to heat waves, drought, flooding, increased pests (and the occasional leaky pipeline)......... But it won't stop people from tossing plastics away, won't stop people from peddling misinformation, won't clean up pollution that's not based on fossil extraction, and won't magically cure diseases, even as it slows their spread. Oh, and we'll still have to brush our teeth if we want to keep them.
There is so much misinformation in these comments that NYT would do well to run an article clearly explaining what dengue is & what the vaccine available can & cannot do.
There are 4 serotypes of dengue. Immunity against one does not confer immunity against the other three. While people usually recover after a 1st infection, becoming infected with dengue a 2nd time (with a different serotype than the first time) can prove fatal because a 2nd infection can result in generalized organ failure & bleeding, which is why it used to be called hemorrhagic dengue, but the name has now been changed to "severe dengue."
The is only one vaccine, Dengvaxia, marketed only recently & results haven't been quite positive, as it was discovered that it can "only be used in people who have previously had a dengue infection, as outcomes may be worsened in those who have not been previously infected." In other words, if a person gets vaccinated without having had dengue and subsequently contacts the infection, it will be of the severe type. There are other vaccines currently in development which will hopefully be better. Meanwhile we have to protect ourselves against all mosquito transmitted diseases, not just dengue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_vaccine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
Also, thousands of species feed on mosquitoes, including birds, fish, reptiles & other insects. Eradicating mosquitoes would result in unknown harm to the rest of the food chain.
3
-read my comments below
I read them. You've got most of it wrong.
i corrected the mistake, any problem with that? All the other comments and website referrals are correct.
I see the map will encompass Washington DC by 2080.
Maybe by then Congress will take Climate Change seriously.
2
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell once wrote that threats to our national security come from disease and climate change in addition to the usual military and foreign invasion threats. I hope the current administration takes note of this threat.
3
The current administration knows what it knows. All else is fake...
At this point I suppose all you have to do is take some dread disease or ecological problem, project it into the future for, let's say, 60 years, and predict that in a warming world that the calamity will worsen.
Who knew academia was so easy? But what if it doesn't warm? Or what if other factors stop the spread (development of new medicines, ecological competition, you name it, but let's not consider those possibilities).
And what if an asteroid hits earth? That might mess up those projections.
And I project that in a warming world, the sale of lawn chairs will increase as people want spend more time outside. Can I get a publication, at least in a trade magazine or maybe Harvard business Review?
1
You are correct. If the right wing politicians' information from their fossil fuel corporate owners is correct and warming does not occur, then problem solved. But if the actual scientists are correct, then "the calamity will worsen" indeed. Most of us trust the scientists over the right wing corporate bobble-heads.
2
Climate change or not it's getting warmer and tropical decease are going to spread to where they weren't before. World wide billions should be spent in finding cures for malaria, dengue and other tropical decease now not because of climate change, what may or may not in the future or we might get them in the future but because people are dying now.
1
This is bound to happen as we remain in constant denial of the fact that earth's climate is changing. We've known about and denied this for a long time. I can remember reading about ocean temperatures rising back in the International Geophysical Year when I was in grammar school back in the 1950's and they predicted the spread of "tropical/orphan" diseases back then along with sea level rise, et cetera.
Those in the "Financial Economy" figure that they can insure themselves against any and all problems while those in the "Wage Economy" will suffer the direct effects. In the end, our species may well not survive.
Humans simply do not listen and few actually heed warnings of any kind thinking that their bluster and bravado will make them immune - good luck with that.
4
Have worked as an ICU physician in Asia, there are a few diseases I am afraid of, because despite all current Rx options, you provide support and await Divine help:
- Black water fever (BWF, extreme form of malaria falciparum)
- Resistant Typhoid & Tuberculosis
- Aggressive Sys. Lupus (young women)
- Fulminant Hanta virus
& the scariest of them all (above is just a comparison for disease morbidity)
- Dengue Fever, the aggressive variety, behaves similar to BWF, multi-organ failure: you die bleeding from every orifice.
Most Dengue vaccines are in Phase II trials as we speak, but Dengvaxia is now in Phase-III trials. Anyone interested can read this: https://www.who.int/immunization/research/development/dengue_vaccines/en/
You can take prophylaxis against Malaria but only clothing, bug repellent precautions for Dengue.
I've lost quite a few Dengue patients, and I still recall each death despite a decade has passed. One of the lucky ones who survived, told me later that when he had high grade fever, it felt like someone had taken a hammer and was pounding his bones and joints. He was a soldier, been in war, had his left arm torn from landmines. He said, that was nothing in comparison.
I've a feeling, more deadly viruses, bacteria & parasites are going to raise their ugly heads as warming happens.
In a way, it's Nature's circuitous path to halt the species which is causing earth the most harm-- us, the humans!
11
Actually there currently is a licensed Dengue vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur called Dengvaxia, it's been around for a few years now and just a couple of months ago it was conditionally approved by the FDA for limited use, only by children who were not previously exposed to Dengue. Seems that the vaccine is dangerous to those who have been previously infected with Dengue. Ther have been criminal charges brought against Safoni and a researcher in the Philippines. Seems that the human body is to blame for the deveopment of severe Dengue. Cytokines(an over reaction to another Dengue infection). "The development od severe Dengue is multifactorial and thougt to result from an immunopathological reaction involving both innate immune responses and adaptive immune responses..." From "Nature Reviews Microbiology. Please read the article :https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286219568_Dengue_vaccine_hypotheses_to_understand_CYD-TDV-induced_protection; also https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/01/fda-dengue-vaccine-restrictions/ also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759171/#S0014title https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/dengue-vaccine-fiasco-leads-criminal-charges-researcher-philippines
1
Lou, it is the opposite: Dengvaxia is dangerous if administered to people who have NOT been exposed to dengue before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
The FDA approved the vaccine for those who have had dengue before only. From their press release: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today the approval of Dengvaxia, the first vaccine approved for the prevention of dengue disease caused by all dengue virus serotypes (1, 2, 3 and 4) in people ages 9 through 16 who have laboratory-confirmed previous dengue infection and who live in endemic areas."
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/first-fda-approved-vaccine-prevention-dengue-disease-endemic-regions
2
i made a silly mistake , i meant otherwise.
1
I spent several years living in the north of Vietnam and contracted dengue while I was there. I was alone, and so had to take care of myself. I distinctly remember not being able to walk from my bed to the bathroom, so was forced to crawl across the floor on hands and knees. I couldn't shower, so sat on the shower floor and held the shower head next to my chest to get something of a wash. Regular paracetamol kept my fever at an acceptable level, just. You really feel every single joint in your body like you never have before. It is truly an awful disease, and it takes you a long time to get over it. I would never wish dengue on anybody, though considering we can't even keep the preventable diseases like measles at bay anymore, I can't see dengue being eradicated anytime soon, so good luck if you get it.
7
The spread of dengue has also been regarded as a threat to the blood supply:
(1) Hilary J. Bambrick, Rosalie E. Woodruff & Ivan C. Hanigan (2009) Climate
change could threaten blood supply by altering the distribution of vector-borne disease: an Australian case-study, Global Health Action, 2:1, 2059,
(2) Is dengue a threat to the blood supply?
Transfusion Medicine, 2009,19, 66–77
(3) Mitigating the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Dengue in Australia
Journal of Blood Transfusion. Volume 2016, Article ID 3059848, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3059848
4
Dengue is an absolutely miserable disease. You do not want to contract dengue under any circumstances. I've been fortunate in my travels so far. Others have not. Malaria has a much higher incidence rate. However, there are several important differences that make dengue worse.
For one, aedes is primarily an urban mosquito. Anopheles, the bug most commonly responsible for malaria, is generally found in forested areas. Unless you live or travel in rural communities, your chances of contracting malaria are basically nil. Malaria has a higher prevelancy rate because until recently more people lives in rural areas.
For two, aedes is active during the day, particularly the morning and dusk, when urban dwellers are out and about. Anopheles by contrast doesn't come out until night. People are more likely to be indoors. Unless you spend a lot of time in the forest at night, a window screen is about as much protection as you need to effectively limit malarial infection.
For three, aedes actively hunts humans. We are their preferred food source. With anopheles, the hunt is mostly random. They'll latch on to any mammal with a large enough CO2 exhaust. That's why mosquitoes seem to prefer some people more than others. They track you by your breathing. If you have a more noticeable exhale, mosquitoes generally go after you first. This is the principle that makes DEET work. Bug spray masks your "scent."
Makes me glad I live in the desert though. There are very few mosquitoes.
8
Dengue is also known as- Bone Break Fever. No need for further descriptions.
4
Where is Hawaii in all of this? Your maps exclude the Tropical Pacific regions which btw, accounts for most of the water mass on the planet. Hawaii has suffered from Dengue outbreaks for decades, yet no mention of it, neither the Caribbean region, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The
Times editors need to proof read their employees' articles prior to publication in general; inaccuracies and misuse of words, terms and phrases happen all too often.
3
The people whom could do something about this and are not seem to not care for the health of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Or maybe they accept that this will happen and have plans to move to Montana, Idaho or Wyoming over the coming decades.
3
I spent more than a month in Ecuador in 2006 and contracted Dengue Fever. Until recently there wasn't any kind of vaccine for it, according to the travel clinic doctors. My infection was discovered while I was still in the country and the doctor who treated me said the first infection can be protective against a subsequent one. Or, a subsequent infection could result in death. My convalescent Dengue makes me a carrier. Taking precautions as I did and getting Dengue anyway was unnerving. It took me six months to recover from the fatigue and what most reports don't tell you, stress and fatigue can result in relapses as it does with West Nile. Horrible.
2
Gene-drive mosquitos out of existence.
3
And what about the animals that depend on them? Plus, to "gene-drive" something as you call it is an impossibility and has always led to unintended consequences. Read some books.
5
just what animals are dependent on mosquitoes?
4
Ever heard of bats?
2
An FWIW: Inoculation against dengue was included in the "cocktail" of vaccinations I received in 1968 before going to Vietnam. I had to look dengue up in the Merck Manual...
USN 1967-71
Vietnam 1968
2
Interesting. I wonder what you were being inoculated with because the first and only vaccine for dengue, Dengvaxia, was only approved by the FDA this year.
Dunno. Dengue was one of the diseases listed.
www.researchgate.net/figure/Dengue-in-US-service-members-during-the-Vietnam-War_tbl2_223981916
Presenting a prediction of the future 60 years hence is not news. It is not even senationalism. It is fiction. Surely there are more urgent problems today that need expsoure from the Times so that momentum can be created to fix them??
2
"Warming temperatures help expand dengue’s range because, in part, as it gets warmer mosquitoes can thrive in more places where they couldn’t previously. Warming temperatures also shorten the time it takes a mosquito to become a biting adult and accelerate the time between when a mosquito picks up a disease and is able to pass it on."
This stuff is *known*, it's not fiction. And if you really think the Times isn't covering "more urgent problems", then I don't know what you're reading when you go to this site. Otherwise, that statement is a cheap shot.
10
@David G - There are several fairly easy predictions to make that, together, provide the basis for this article.
1 - the population in nations closer to the equator is rising
2 - the planet will warm further due to our greenhouse emissions
3 - the mosquitoes that spread dengue do well in densely populated, warm areas
These are reasonable, observation-driven projections, not fiction. And changing how much warming we'll get takes a long time, so we need to do it now.
What could make the article's projections not come true?
1 - an effective vaccine for dengue
2 - eradication of mosquitoes with resulting, unknown complications of that
3 - a massive human population crash
4 - an extremely unlikely succession of massive volcanoes with resulting cooling and global crop failures
5 - geoengineered cooling with potential for unintended over-cooling and results of same
But the spread of warm-weather illnesses to places that become increasingly warm is an entirely reasonable expectation. And the warmer we make it, the more spread to expect.
Correction to your report.
"Climate change and urbanization WILL increase the number of people at risk of contracting dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease that can be deadly."
Why are you afraid at the NY Times to tell it like it really is? Like are you giving us fake news?
14