Re: A letter I agree with

In message <j2jn12paufr124h4qtg9jcr9jfhpa4n9tj@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

It could have been infected a long time ago and not necessarily be a
carrier.

How long ago it was infected is immaterial to have antibodies it has
been infected as I state above.

Rubbish antibodies can be passed down from parents or possibly even
further back. I understand a disease can be no longer prevalent but
the population can still show antibodies.

Would you like to give a reference for that? My experience with antibodies is with cattle. The antibodies are passed to the young in the colostrum and are only for the antibodies active in the mother. They only last a short while the calf then has to form its own.

I will read your reference with interest.



As you will note I have not suggested it would become a carrier. So
basically you have agreed with this point. Why not just say so.


I don't. See above.



2. No wild grey squirrel is likely to have been vaccinated against
parapox as far as I can find out no such vaccination exists.


Really? How clever of you to work that out.

So you agree with this point. Good why not just say so.


I did.

No you didn't. Really ? is not agreement neither is your silly point about working it out. Do you have a disability which prevents a simple answer?





3. While the grey was infected enough to be developing the antibodies
it would be giving off the virus.


But not necessarily afterwards.

Nobody but you has suggested it would afterwards.


So how do you know the greys are infected? Only one has been
diagnosed; much fewer than reds. Could the reds have given that grey
its disease?

Technically I suppose yes but in practice unlikely. An animal which when sick becomes shy and less active is less likely to spread the disease than an animal which is barely effected and continues to move around and behave normally.





4. The reds do not have many cases with antibodies because they die
from the disease generally. Some have survived like the one treated by
the Penrith vet with an anti viral drug usually used on cats.


Probably the greys didn't have them initially either. This IMO shows
that the reds are beginning to show resistance.

The few which have survived obviously have.

Good, you agree.

NO Angus I do not agree with the wide sweeping statement you are trying to pretend I do. I agree that the very few reds which have survived the parapox will have antibodies. It does not show that the reds as a population are beginning to show resistance. How do you/we know the reds with antibodies have not been the result of mans intervention like the one treated in Penrith.


However you appear to be
suggesting that the virus at first would wipe out the greys as it is
with reds then they slowly developed immunity.


No I'm not..


As far as I have been able to find there is no evidence of a crash in
the greys population at all and certainly not to the degree that would
have happened if your scenario was the correct one. However if you have
any evidence of such a crash in numbers I would be very interested to
read it.


Probably because they are not infected.

SO where have the antibodies come from. Even using your theory the greys would have had to be infected at some point to develop the antibodies. Before you suggest the antibodies came with them from the USA I have been unable to establish that parapox has ever occurred in the USA and is probably the result of a recent mutation (as is feared in "bird flu and its possible change to infecting man ) hence statement saying nobody knows where it came from. So logic dictates that if greys have antibodies even if passed on from their parent the population of greys have been at some time infected by the virus.

This even by your theory would result in a population crash.



5, The virus given off by the greys while developing the antibodies
would be capable of infecting reds.

But that doesn't mean they are infecting reds at all. They could have
had and recovered from the virus.

Angus read the statement again. I will try to make it clearer for you.
To get the antibodies the grey must have had the virus.

Not necessarily, the antibodies could have been passed on or it might
have had the disease and recovered. In both cases it would IMO not be
a threat.

Firstly if you have evidence of this long term inheritance please send me the reference I will be interested to read it.

Surely you can see that while infected and developing the disease (before they recovered ) they would be infective.


During the
days/weeks it was developing the antibodies it would be capable of and
would be infecting any reds in its area.


See abpve.

Does this mean you think that while ill and developing the antibodies (before it recovered ) the grey would not be infective.





6. Greys are therefor capable of being the source of infection for
reds.


They may be capable but not necessarily culpable.

Can you explain how a grey can live in the same territory as the red be
giving off the virus and not be a cause of the infection.


You don't know that and neither do the scientists. Remember, they
don't know the origin of the pox in reds.

They don't know the origin of the virus BUT both populations have been exposed to it. As far as I can establish it appears to be a recent mutation not one that has been around for a century or more.

If both populations have the antibodies both have been exposed to the virus. As this can't be a terribly historic even (because the virus doesn't seem to have existed that long) can you explain how both populations can share the same territory with out the greys (which are capable of surviving the disease ) infecting the reds (which in general don't seem to be able to survive)?



Do you seriously suggest that there could be greys with the virus and
reds living in the same wood but the virus was getting to the reds from
some other source?


If the scientists don't know how should I know; and you for that
matter.

The scientists don't say they don't know. They say simply they don't know where the virus has come from. That means they do not know what it mutated from or where.

They also say that no grey has been found to be a carrier. In the terms of a scientist this is very specific it means that they have not found an animal which has had the disease and recovered while still giving of the virus AFTER it has recovered. They have not said that while the grey is developing the antibodies it can not/does not give off enough virus to infect reds.




Right Angus which of the above is speculation and before you make
sweeping statements please make sure you have some sort of proof that it
is speculation.

As far as I can see all of your speil is speculation.

Please just identify by a number which ones from the original 6 were
speculation.


Without going back I'd say most.

Fine answer the questions above and in particular provide a reference to back your assertion that antibodies are passed down for generation after generation.




If it is speculation you will have no problem proving the point will
you?

I don't have to, the scientists already have;

They don't know the origin of the pox in reds; the antibodies are
common in "some" grey populations; some ( fewer) reds have the
antibodies as well and presumably that's the beginning of a resistance
to the disease; only one grey has ever been found with the disease;
and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers.


Angus you are deliberately for reasons I can't understand trying to
pretend that saying an animal isn't a carrier means it can't ever have
been infective.


See above.

Nothing above address the point.


Why are you deliberately trying to twist the point or don't you
understand the term carrier?

Having antibodies doesn't mean it's a carrier.

I have never said it does I have specifically said it may not. However not being a carrier does not mean that at some point in its life it didn't give off the virus. As I have pointed out above the term carrier has a specific meaning.






They don't know the origin of the pox in reds; the antibodies are
common in "some" grey populations; some ( fewer) reds have the
antibodies as well and presumably that's the beginning of a resistance
to the disease; only one grey has ever been found with the disease;
and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers.

Seems you think you know more than the scientists.

No Angus it seems you are either incapable of understanding the para
above, wilfully ignoring the facts it doesn't spell out for you (the
most likely) or are really so ignorant of the biological facts that you
can't understand the para above.

Were you able to A) talk to the scientists (which by the way you
generally rate as a pack of liars who never get anything right - why
have you suddenly changed your mind? ) the would explain to you that the
points I make above are true.

B) If you took the trouble to do a bit of research you would find the
above was true. (Before you get into the childish word twisting I mean
the points I want you to comment on numbers 1 to 6)

However for reasons you have never explained you always try to read the
worst case scenario into ever thing. Surely this isn't because you now
that if you don't your arguments don't have the proverbial leg to stand
on.

See above.

Nothing above explains why you are such a dismal so and so that you
always try to pretend everything is the very worst possible situation.


In what way?

A cull of grey squirrels become a massive cull which is a deliberate attempt to destroy every grey in the country. That is one example. We started this discussion (what seems like a life time away ) with me talking about culls of greys which came into "exclusion zones" round the reds strong holds. You couldn't/wouldn't see it as that it has to be in your eye a total war against the greys trying to totally wipe out a population of 2.5 million. I have found no evidence this is the case even when following your searches. You on the other hand have latched on to one headline and have carried on a discussion as if every grey was to be shot on site. I can't understand why you have to imagine the worst rather than the reality.


Surely not a deliberate attempt to make the actions of others look worse
than they really are. That would be dishonest and coming from such a
pillar of honesty as your self would be as bad as telling lies.


Making who look worse? Not the scientists who don't have any
evidence as to where the pox comes from but definitely those who are
killing greys for spurious reasons.


Firstly in case you missed my point above the origin of the virus is uncertain as to the virus it mutated from. That is immaterial both populations have been exposed to it.

Back to the point. You appear in your zeal that no animal should be killed ever (by the way perhaps you ought do something about horse racing ) to be trying to persuade readers who may not be well enough informed that there is a mass attack all over the country against every grey in all circumstances which is not the case, and has never been suggested as the case by anyone but you. What is the motivation for this suggestion?





Right Angus you now have two versions to comment on. The first 15
lines of this post and my numbers 1 to 6.

If you are capable please tell me which of those points is speculation
AND how they contradict the statement you are putting so much faith in.


See above.

You haven't said which of the points are speculation why not?


Most.

I take it you have no proof or even reasoned argument as to why you feel they are speculation.

Clearly an attempt at defence when you have none. Fair enough just admit you can't give reasoned argument to support your case I will understand.







Figures :-))





Why are you so anxious that the reds do not have their suffering
alleviated?

I'm not. I don't think any animal should be culled because it might
possibly be a carrier of a disease.

They aren't being culled because they might possibly be a carrier. Did
you not understand a single thing I wrote above.

I'll try again.

Carrier in this context is taken to mean an animal or person which has
been infected with the disease shows no signs of the disease but is
still giving off the infection.

HOWEVER.

While developing the antibodies the animal/person is giving off
infection. Mostly the antibodies overcome the infection and the animal
is no longer a threat. You must realise that while the antibodies are
being formed the animal is giving off the infection and "carries" the
ineffective agent. However the "technical" term carrier is not applied
until the individual is giving off infection long after the formation of
antibodies and all signs of the disease have disappeared.

For the antibodies to be common it means that the greys have been giving
off the virus there are therefor implications for the populations of
reds.


See above.

Nothing above address the fact that it is certain that to develop
antibodies strongly enough to be capable of infecting reds and other
greys. At this stage they are not technically carriers.


See above.

Why are you so scared to address this point?


I already have.

In your dreams you might have in reality you have come nowhere near. You
haven't been able to identify any speculation apart from saying all and
you surely aren't trying to say that antibodies only being formed in the
presence of an infection or vaccination is speculation are you?


Yawn! See above.





We don't do it to our own population; why should we do it to others?


A number of reasons. Firstly I and I expect most normal individuals see
animals as different to us if only for the reason they are a different
species to us.

Secondly all animals treat members of their own species differently from
members of other species so why should we be any different?

What other animals kill one members of one species to protect members
of a third?

Angus I have not said any do that is part of our being different to
animals we (well most of us) have the intellect to be able to realise it
is possible to make decisions like the ones you refer to, to kill some
animals for the benefit of others.

Not most of us. The fafe conservationists.

What pray is a fafe?


It's "fake", to those intelligent enough to recognise a typo.

Angus I can assure you that more people realise it is possible to make
such decisions than don't realise it.

Whether it's "possible" or not is not the issue. What is desirable or
just is what matters.

So you suggest that no matter what the consequences to individuals or a species it is undesirable to kill an animal? So you wouldn't kill malaria carrying mosquitos?




What's the big deal man kills animals every day you even eat them and
their products.

You're flanneling; that's a different issue.

Just remember this.

"They don't know the origin of the pox in reds"

That is because nobody knows the origin of pox full stop. Anyway that
does not alter the facts I have outlined above.


Thanks. At last!

If they don't know the origin, why blame the greys?

They don't blame the greys for the origin of the pox virus. Nobody but you has ever suggested they do. What they do say is that now the virus has appeared the greys can and do spread it. That is not the same thing as saying it came from the greys.

To give you an example - back in 1967 when I last had much to do with foot and mouth disease there were somewhere in the region of 24 different viruses responsible. New ones keep appearing. Swine vesicular Disease is a new disease in the last 30 to 40 years. To the best of my knowledge no body knows its origin. That is it is obviously a mutation from some other virus but nobody knows what. The origin is unknown however pigs can spread it to other pigs. The same is true of parapox nobody knows its origin BUT squirrels can spread it to other squirrels.


If it does please explain how and not just by a sweeping statement which
pretends they are wrong because you haven't any defence against them.


I haven't said they're wrong. I agree they don't know the origin.

You're as confused as MO and JM

Sorry Angus it is more a case of you either not understanding the phraseology OR (probably more likely ) ignoring the true meaning and trying to pretend it has another meaning as the true meaning doesn't suit your purposes.

By the way what are your purposes. Why do you want to make the cull seem much more serious that it is?



Seemingly you do :-))

The MK plug is fused again.

Oh your getting desperate again Angus. The silly infantile abuse is
creeping in always a sure sign. When a grown man can do no better than
resort to abuse you always know you are winning.


It's not abuse; it's a bit of fun and mickey taking. Have you not got
the meaning yet? If not, ask any electrician.

Angus I knew about MK plugs many years ago. That does not alter the fact that you only resort to such tactics when you are struggling.


--
Malcolm Kane
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... How long ago it was infected is immaterial to have antibodies it has ... the immune system to fend off disease. ... As you will note I have not suggested it would become a carrier. ... Probably the greys didn't have them initially either. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ... While they have the virus and are in contact with the reds they are ... and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... the population can still show antibodies. ... the immune system to fend off disease. ... that means you think it will become a carrier. ... the greys population at all and certainly not to the degree that would ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ... Only one death from the virus means they don't die from the disease. ... Carrier in this context is taken to mean an animal or person which has been infected with the disease shows no signs of the disease but is still giving off the infection. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... Antibodies are the result of infection by the virus. ... While they have the virus and are in contact with the reds they are ... and it's only regarded as "possible" that the greys are carriers. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)