I wonder if The Atlantic knows that one of the first reported outbreaks of monkeypox in the US was because of prairie dogs serving as reservoirs.
I think it's rather interesting how this monkeypox is playing out. I suppose it should remind people to be in-tune with their own bodies and know when things don't look right.
I wonder if The Atlantic knows that one of the first reported outbreaks of monkeypox in the US was because of prairie dogs serving as reservoirs.
I think it's rather interesting how this monkeypox is playing out. I suppose it should remind people to be in-tune with their own bodies and know when things don't look right.
I think if the same recommendations of lockdowns happen, then we'll know what's really going on here. Quite frankly, the mask wearing thing is ridiculous. Of all things, monkeypox should be easy to contain even within a household unlike SARS-COV2. I think the idea of wearing masks around loved ones for fear of them having monkeypox just sounds like something that may have come from the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.
Believe it or not the 2003 outbreak was the hook for the story.
They proceed from the fantastical presumption that an animal host has not appeared and then proceed to worry about the possibility of an animal host appearing.
Even for corporate media that's an impressive bit of illogic.
So they actually did argue that there have been prior animal reservoirs, only to pontificate on whether there may be a possibility of animal reservoirs? Wouldn't that 2003 outbreak already lead to the assumption that this is a likely possibility? Or maybe I'm missing something?
Poor us trying to make sense of the media I suppose.
It's not so much as they argued that there had been prior animal reservoirs as it is they stumbled right over it without understanding the significance.
When you look at the cases outside of Africa, the evidence strongly suggests there's an animal reservoir somewhere. Endemicity may not be the case in North America but it is almost certainly the case in Europe.
I wonder if The Atlantic knows that one of the first reported outbreaks of monkeypox in the US was because of prairie dogs serving as reservoirs.
I think it's rather interesting how this monkeypox is playing out. I suppose it should remind people to be in-tune with their own bodies and know when things don't look right.
I think if the same recommendations of lockdowns happen, then we'll know what's really going on here. Quite frankly, the mask wearing thing is ridiculous. Of all things, monkeypox should be easy to contain even within a household unlike SARS-COV2. I think the idea of wearing masks around loved ones for fear of them having monkeypox just sounds like something that may have come from the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.
Maybe Fauci is going back to his roots?
Believe it or not the 2003 outbreak was the hook for the story.
They proceed from the fantastical presumption that an animal host has not appeared and then proceed to worry about the possibility of an animal host appearing.
Even for corporate media that's an impressive bit of illogic.
So they actually did argue that there have been prior animal reservoirs, only to pontificate on whether there may be a possibility of animal reservoirs? Wouldn't that 2003 outbreak already lead to the assumption that this is a likely possibility? Or maybe I'm missing something?
Poor us trying to make sense of the media I suppose.
It's not so much as they argued that there had been prior animal reservoirs as it is they stumbled right over it without understanding the significance.
When you look at the cases outside of Africa, the evidence strongly suggests there's an animal reservoir somewhere. Endemicity may not be the case in North America but it is almost certainly the case in Europe.