
I have just spent a couple of days at the beautiful University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. It was fun being around researchers such as Sam Loker, who view the world from a perspective of pathogens. I thought that Leigh Ann and I were the only two. However, unlike me they focus on intestinal nematodes, which are really disgusting (this is coming from a microbiologist). So we swapped stories of what you can catch when touring the world and I learned to never swim or wade in any lakes in Nepal because nematode larvae burrow through your skin. I also learned that there are bragging rights associated with nematode infections. This is different from microbial infections. For example, I would never brag about catching plague or anthrax but that might be from lack of opportunity as much as any other reason.
For the talk I gave at UNM, I did an analysis of the deaths that have resulted from major epidemics that have occurred throughout the world during the past 700 years. Nearly half of the deaths are from bacteria and most of those deaths were caused by plague. The only epidemic that has killed more people than plague is influenza. People in New Mexico still catch plague, primarily from their cats. However plague epidemics don't occur any more because we now have antibiotics. Their are strains of plague that are resistant to almost everything.
My dad helped me understand a plague transmission model several years ago. (Turned out it was a lot like an electrical circuit and my dad designs those). Plague is transmitted between c/rats and humans by fleas. Rather than killing the rats (I couldn't kill cats), it was better to feed them and lure them away from human populations because if they die, then their fleas move from the dead bodies to living human bodies.


2 comments:
Feeding rats to lure them away? Now that has to be the silliest idea I've heard for a long time!
I can't it working. Not all the rats would leave the human habitations, and those that didn't would suddenly find themselves with drastically reduced competition for the food resources. So they would breed up to their former numbers.
Actually this idea has been tried before, and it didn't work. Heard of garbage dumps?
Now suppose, somewhat improbably, that all the rats did leave human habitation for the feeding stations. Then what? With abundant food, their numbers would grow exponentially and rapidly (which are not the same thing) until there once again was a food shortage. So some of them would head back to human habitations, and you are back where you started. Or you could start killing them. Some might smell a rat and again head for the safety of human habitation, and besides, I thought the whole idea was not to kill them. You could try increasing the food to match the population, but if you think that will work you belong in gaol with Mr Madoff.
More intelligent ideas might be to find ways to stop rats from breeding, breed and release flea-proof and/or plague-proof rats (which would presumably have a competitive advantage over the other rats, so that the relevant gene would eventually become near-universal), make human habitations less hopsitable to rats (this is called "public health", well, it's where the notion of public health really got started), try to eradicate fleas, kill the rats with a poison that also killed the fleas,....
Well, I'm glad you appreciated the humor of this post Richard. Thanks for your suggestions.
Post a Comment