He may get his wish. We don’t yet know as of March 2016 , exactly when a vaccine will be developed for Zika, but some think it won’t be in time.
This article from April, 2016 on The Independent , which says: According to the CDC itself, “We don’t presently have any new vaccines,” as part of its push early next year to have one ready and given to everyone by “mid-2015,” a senior official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told The Independent. “We’re not able to get that done quickly, and, as far as we’re concerned, have no plans for one as soon as next year. “The timeline would probably work out better if we could have this vaccine ready in 2015, when the World Health Organization (WHO) is set to release new guidelines for Zika infections in response to the emergence of the virus,” he said. “This will give us a good opportunity to work out how quickly we should proceed with a test in humans so we are not taking a gamble with the public health.” Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Nuffield Trust, an independent organisation that is co-ordinating global efforts to stem the spread of Ebola, said it is “an amazing achievement” that the “Zika outbreak on Manicouagan is now under control.” “What we’re probably seeing is a response to that virus that has been in some regions of Australia for a number of years, and where local authorities are well staffed,” Frieden told ABC. “That’s what we thought this would be like.” Of the 7,000 mosquito-tested positive Zika cases reported, it was only 400 recorded as Zika-affected people, meaning that the actual number of cases is probably in the thousands. Frieden says this represents a huge catch-up in Zika responses: “The number of cases is also very much above the number we can have seen before. “There’s an extraordinary number of cases in Australia, we’re lucky to have them.”
How well prepared for the Zika epidemic was Australia in 2016? “This will give us a good opportunity to work out how quickly we should proceed with a test in humans so we are not taking a gamble with the public health.”
I could post yet another blog of the same style, but instead, I will offer some of the comments in the latest blog entry and what they suggest about Zika. They are not as scientific as scientific comments, so let me just quote the links and take the reader out of the blog!
From “Why do Zika infections seem to occur in many urban centres?” by Anahad O’Brien on 23 April 2016 at 13:12. I do not see any evidence that any “zika outbreak” is taking place in the US right now. That said, when a disease occurs in a town only a few miles from the national capital, I do get concerned. You might be wondering why I even bothered listing urban “zika outbreaks” in a blog post. Just to clarify a few points: first, if you look at the WHO’s estimate of global cases of Zika that they published in January 2016 , it seems that a population density of 20-50,000 people per square mile will cause a few hundred cases per year. They put the case frequency in some very cities like Rio de Janeiro which are in the middle of densely populated areas. In Sydney, and other major cities in Australia, that population density is well above 2 million. That is an area of about 6 miles at 7,000 feet above sea level. That is the type of population density you need to cause such a significant number of cases by having Zika infection. For comparison’s sake, we actually have only seen a few cases since Zika started to spread widely in the summer of 2014. So the number of cases probably is lower. The second question is also a simple technical question. If the number of cases is really so small, and if a few “dwellers” end up being affected by Zika virus, how are any other countries in Asia, Africa, or Latin America likely to respond ? Surely they might not want to? The third important question is what is the “normal” infection rate in that area? In a place where you have many people with a relatively low incidence of Zika virus, and you need to create a large number of new cases to create the “new” people to spread, do you really feel like you have the “fitness” to take on the responsibility of sending health services, and other public health services, to a region where that is a “normal” infection “trick” for the authorities to do? Those people with the lowest chance of developing Zika in the area are those who could potentially be the most affected, and the ones who are at greatest risk in the first place, as they can spread the virus in areas with greater population density, which is where the virus spreads. I will try and stick to “the normal infection rate” question for now. Again, let me cite