| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:20:00 +0000 |
| Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
To put the other point of view. Slightly and deliberately Devil's advocate but hopefully it will stimulate the argument.
I think post-vaccination sero-surveillance is important, but not in order to respond to immediately but to identify and correct problems before the next vaccination campaign. It should not be expensive compared to the cost of the vaccination campaign,only a few per cent of that cost if it is properly designed and carried out i.e. not a blanket sampling but a planned representative sample. We recently did this for brucellosis vaccination in small ruminants in Albania and the cost was not high by comparison to the cost of vaccination (around 3%) and the problems it identified will save that amount of money in the next campaign. The lack of post-vaccination sero-monitoring after FMD vaccination campaigns in several souther African countries is probably contributing to problems of controlling the disease in that region as I saw last year in at least two countries. Without it, we could be injecting expensive water.
Post-vaccination serology should be on a much smaller scale than surveillance when vaccination ceases in terms of numbers of samples because of the different designs required for estimating what should be a high prevalence compared to detecting what should be a small prevalence.
Hope that does the trick!
Nick Honhold
BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH
Independent veterinary epidemiologist
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
|
|
|