Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
That is not what you are arguing at all. You said the birds should not be tested because the full order was given, not because they may have avian flu which they can't possibly have it the herd would be dead by now. So the flock is no threat to anyone's safety unless you are arguing they could still someday contract at. If that's your argument then your stance is all birds need to be destroyed because they found represent a possible threat to people. So which is it?
|
The flock
was positive for H5N1 avian influenza and nearly a fifth of the population died. The CFIA issued an order to cull. Normally, there is no requirement to re-test because the cull would have been carried out.
But this case is atypical since the farm refused to comply. And now, here we are almost a year later. Yes, it is possible the remaining ostriches are influenza-free; they may have never contracted the virus, they may have cleared the infection. The worst possible outcome is that their disease is subclinical and they've continued to shed the virus over the interim.
I don't
want the ostriches to be destroyed; my concern is that a precedent is set that prevents the ability of the CFIA to mitigate outbreaks of high-risk pathogens. It is a slap in the face to other farmers and operations that are in compliance and have to face the very difficult repercussions of an avian influenza outbreak.
That is why I am taking a hard stance on this issue. It is pragmatism not fascism.
I am also not against improving the policy, but that takes time and study. I referenced the ongoing H5N1 outbreak in dairy cattle. The USDA elected not to cull the animals, but US dairly farming practices resulted in the original outbreak spreading across the country, spreading to other animals (cats, mice), and led to dozens of human cases. Thankfully, most of these infections were relatively benign, and there was no sign of human-to-human transmission. They are still recording new outbreaks in US dairy herds.
I personally think it would have been prohibitively costly to effectively quanrantine and monitor the ostrich flock during and after the intitial outbreak.
Regarding testing, my understanding is that it would most likely have to go through the provincial labotatory and/or NCFAD. I'm not sure if it would be admissible to have it done privately given the regulation around this virus. Furthermore, funding coming from "wealthy backers" - we know who these people are - in my opinion amounts to political interference.
A lot of effort is put into developing avian influenza vaccines (not just for H5N1). There is an evergreen list of
vaccine candidate viruses that are stockpiled in small amounts and ready for manufacture if required. Livestock vaccination is not a novel concept, but it is expensive and complicated, and never seems to quite gain traction when it comes time to talk about cost. In terms of influenza, the virus can undergo something called reassortment; this is when the virus exchanges parts of its genome with another influenza virus. So you could develop and deploy a vaccine only to have it be completely useless. Again, pragmatically, I don't believe it is worth the time and cost for Canada to develop a vaccine for a non-native species like ostriches.
Finally, no, my argument is absolutely not that all birds need to be destroyed. Simply, we need to be cognizant of the fact that wild birds, particularly waterfowl, are natural reservoirs for avian influenza. And not just H5N1, but all kinds. My argument is that we therefore need to practice and enforce strong biosecurity and general safety measures. There is only so much we can control. Obviously there are industry regulations that protect the industry and workers, but this also extends to the average person. If you see a dead or distressed bird, don't touch it. Watch your pets and kids around birds and their habitats, etc., etc. Since H5N1 has become more prevalent, there is a lot more public messaging about this.
Okay, now I'm probably rambling.