Author wrote:
Well Jane we come back to the same question – would they be vaccinating to
live or die?
Great if it meant vaccinate to live, but would it?
What you write below all makes perfect logical sense, but we keep coming
back to the lies and trust bit. I suppose it also might depend as to were
farming in the UK stood at the time of any outbreak. Not just black and
white is it?
Coleen
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Apologies and an explanation!

Hi Coleen!

I don't think that would happen.

I think that as soon as FMD was clinically diagnosed the animals on that

farm would be slaughtered but animals on surrounding farms would be
vaccinated and of course movements stopped.

In the eventuality that there had been a movement prior to the disease

being diagnosed and an outbreak appeared elsewhere, I think the same would
happen. Animals clinically diagnosed there would be slaughtered and the
surrounding livestock vaccinated.

I think anyone that fell into the area they deemed to be included in that

surrounding area – the ring fence – would have to vaccinate, which would
make sense and I can't see why anyone would not want to do so, can you?

Author wrote:
Regarding vaccination what happens if they wait like they did before

before

they stop animal movement. We could still end up with countless animals
being slaughtered.
At the risk of asking hair pulling out questions, will we be in line

with

everyone one else and made to use vaccination, or will we be able to

side

step any vaccination issue if we so wanted to regarding the use of
vaccination as a 1st line of defence. Just remembering how the NFU

stepped

in last time! Who would issue this order, the Goverment of the day or

the

EU? It was all rather muddled during fmd I seem to recall. I expect

all of

this has yet to be written in ink.
Coleen
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: [farmtalking] Apologies and an explanation!
My apologies, I have to admit that in one of my messages yesterday I
expressed my feelings of irritation and I'm sorry.
Sometimes I forget that not everyone has been a member of this board

since

it's inception and even if they have, they may not have lived every day
since early 2001 with FMD and it's consequences. Therefore, I should not
expect everyone to know or remember the full story, as I understand it.
In an effort to make amends I will try to explain a few things as I see
them. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but perhaps it will at

least

jog a few memories for some and at least give everyone a better idea of,

as

they say 'where I'm coming from'!
I'm trawling my memory and haven't looked things up to remind me exactly

as

I've had a busy night assisting a little with a difficult calving!
From what I remember, and if I've got it wrong I'm sure someone will put

me

right, our Govt was offered a machine from the US but turned it down, as

you

say.
With hindsight, as we didn't even know about it at the time it was

offered,

we could perhaps, understand why.
The likely reasons it was refused, seems because there were very few
machines available and none of them had been validated. I think one had

been

sent to China to be tested and validated there and others, (I'm not sure

how

many, but certainly less than 20), were in other places or still being

built

and tested in the US. As Andrew says, by then we knew that FMD was in

too

many places.
We would have needed hundreds of validated machines to cope with the
situation as it was then and I can understand that the Government was
reluctant to use just one machine, even in order to validate it for the

US,

they were far too busy with the task in hand.
Their prime concern at the time was getting the disease under control

and

they believed what their own expert 'modelling team' told them; which

was

that the disease could be controlled with the slaughter policy.
What nobody realised at the time, including the Govt, was just how many
animal movements there had been which they believed had spread the
infection. As we know, they tested some farms by taking samples and

using

the ELISA test in the labs but once the 'Contiguous' and 3k culls were
introduced, many farms were not tested and so we will never know if they
were infected or not.
It was Alicia Eykyn who first heard about the machine and alerted us to

it

in April 2001. The machine had first been developed to detect substances
that might be used in bio-terrorism and then the developers asked Fred

Brown

(a British Veterinary Scientist and an expert in FMD, working in the

US), to

test it with FMD virus and he found that it worked.
When FMD was announced here, it must have seemed this might be an
opportunity to test and validate the machine in the UK, hence it's being
offered to our Govt.
Alicia also persuaded Fred Brown to come over from the States to talk to

our

Govt, arranging a meeting at Westminster and various interviews with the
media. Then later in the summer of 2001 she and John Dobson brought Fred
Brown, the machine and Drs. Sutmuller & Barteling to talk to farmers in
Cumbria.
Of course we were all hoping that they would be able to validate the

machine

by using it on our infected farms. We were hoping that even if they used

one

machine it might help to save some of the farms. All we were concerned

about

was stopping the slaughter of healthy stock.
Again with hindsight, perhaps we can see that this was logistically
impractical. One can just imagine the difficulties that might occur, for
instance, if the machine was available for one farm and not others.
The one good thing that came out of all this is that many more people

became

aware of the way such a machine could be used. Pirbright received a

machine

to test and Dr. Paton has already told us about that. There is no doubt

that

it has probably speeded up development and if it's capabilities can be
further improved with more research that's great! However, many more
validated machines would be needed, not only if, heaven forbid we had
another outbreak but also because at the same time they might be needed

in

other parts of the world.
At present we're fortunate in that the current vaccine available did

stop an

epidemic in Uruguay in 2001. So for those that didn't know it had been

used

for some years, it proved it worked at an important time and blew out of

the

window all those who maintained the vaccine doesn't work! There is

nothing

wrong with the vaccine. It does work!
However, much as many others and I urged that we should use it in the UK

in

2001, our Govt chose not to.
I could go into details why I think they didn't but I think that perhaps

is

for another time.
What is very important is that both our Govt and the EU have said the

use of

this vaccine will be an option of first choice if we get another

outbreak.

That is very good news!
As far as I understand it, they mean they will slaughter infected stock
exhibiting signs of the disease but will vaccinate the animals in the
surrounding area. That will stop the disease in it's tracks wherever it
occurs, which is great.
However, the vaccine will only last as a protection for 6 to 12 months.

So

it might be necessary to vaccinate again. Either to maintain some

protection

or if there was another outbreak but it would still affect our FMD free
status because, as Dr. Paton says, the vaccine does stop the animal foam
being ill but does not stop it from being infected. Therefore, we might

have

some 'persistently infected' stock.
Although they are not thought to cause a great risk and some doubt they

are

a risk at all, however small, we have to admit the risk cannot be

denied,

which is why a country has to be free of FMD and vaccinated stock to
maintain it's FMD free status. As things stand at present we will have

to

live with it and I'm sure we're all quite happy about that.
Ruth Watkins told us that the disease could be eradicated if this

vaccine

was used in 85% of the livestock population. No doubt she's right but as
every country is unlikely to do this at the same time, as they may not

be

infected at the same time, it could take a long time to achieve the aim.
Hence the risk would still exist and re-vaccination might have to be

used,

maybe several times and for many years.
This is why I'm sure that if a vaccine can be developed to replace the
existing vaccine, which not only gives long term protection but also

stops

an animal becoming infected, there would no longer be any risk of
persistently infected stock. Such a vaccine would ensure livestock no

longer

suffered from FMD, and could eradicate the disease.
I hope this has been helpful and my apologies to those who may have

known it

all already.
BTW the calf has been up on it's feet and had some breakfast from a

proud

and well-recovered cow that certainly had a very big baby!
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking
To leave the group, email: ...

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...