Hhmm, as one of the field
epidemiologists working on FMD in the centre
of the outbreak (Cumbria) during 2001, I can
certainly share some of the lessons. As a
group we published quite a lot on it during
and after the outbreak.
In infected herds, there was no resistance
to the cull. The compensation scheme was
based on full market value and was paid
rapidly. farmers hated seeing their animals
killed but the fear of the speed with which
FMD can spread was enough to produce
compliance. If the compensation scheme had
not been as generous and well operated as it
was, I think things would have been very
different. But as it was, the culling of
infected farms was rarely resisted. There
were issues of how quickly we could get them
dead and then disposal and these would need
to be taken into account.
However, the dangerous contact "at risk"
pre-emptive culling policy used during the
2001 outbreak was a different matter. For
much of the outbreak it driven to a large
extent by computer modelling and the extent
of the cull created by this led to great
resentment amongst farmers even though there
was a full value compensation scheme. They
would rather have kept their animals than
allow them to be culled when they didn't
think the decision to cull was justified.
Where we could demonstrate a real risk based
on contact, they mainly accepted the
decision, albeit sometimes reluctantly.
Where the decision was based purely on being
a neighbour of an infected farm, it produced
fury, resistance and left a long lasting
legacy of mistrust of government veterinary
services. And in retrospect we have shown
that such an automatic culling policy was
not required. The farmers felt that they
knew that at the time.
I think this emphasises that any stamping
out policy must be developed in peace time,
in collaboration with the livestock keepers
and hand in hand with a compensation policy.
Nick Honhold
BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH
On
12/02/2014 12:05, Serge T. NZIETCHUENG
wrote:
It will be useful to know the
lessons learnt of the use of SO
during the FMD outbreak in UK will
be useful. Is there anyone who can
share with us the main lessons
learnt?
Serge Nzietchueng
Dear All
In my opinion, a stamping
out policy for infected
units with ring vaccination
is perhaps ideal. However, I
am not sure that a stamping
out policy is necessary as
there is no carrier state
and little or no spread via
fomites. Nor is there any
risk to human health. The
reason for stamping out
would be to stop local
spread within a village. For
any stamping out policy to
be effective, there will
NEED to be a properly funded
and functioning compensation
scheme so that owners do not
simply more animals out of
an infected village,
something that is easy to do
with sheep and goats,
particularly young ones.
Compensation schemes have
often not been functional
and/or funded.
As animals will either die
or recover and have no
carrier status, stamping out
may not be necessary and
could be counter productive.
Nick Honhold
BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH
On
11/02/2014 14:53, Paul
Rossiter wrote:
Dear Moderator,
Just one question
to be raised:
Would it be easy
to put PPR to an end
without stamping out
policy?
Best regards