Rubella eliminated in US

[CBL4]

Rubella, a virus that once caused tens of thousands of birth defects and deaths in a single outbreak, has been eliminated from the United States, health officials said on Monday.
...
"During 1964 and 1965 a rubella epidemic in the United States caused an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome which led to more than 11,600 babies born deaf, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal (newborn) deaths, 3,580 babies born blind and 1,800 babies born mentally retarded," the CDC said in a statement.

A vaccine was licensed in 1969 and since then the rubella virus has been included in the measles, mumps and rubella or MMR combined vaccine routinely given to babies and young children.
...
In 1997 there were more than 130,000 cases of rubella in the Americas; in 2002 there were 8,670. Mexico had the most cases with 3,685 and Venezuela had 3,662, according to PAHO.

Just a note, rubella cases are still present in US due visits from foreigners but there have been no case with a local origin.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/03/21/cdc.rubella.reut/index.html
CBL

 

[El Greco]

Another endangered species meets extinction... I wonder what WWF has to say about it.

 

[jambo372]

Something else, potentially worse will probably replace it.

 

[Deetee]

Another endangered species meets extinction... I wonder what WWF has to say about it.

I sometimes wonder about this.
What is the morality behind the concept that that we should eradicate any life forms from the face of this earth?
I know the toll in human misery will outweigh the "rights" of many parasities/organisms to exist , but could there be any adverse consequenses?

 

[richardm]

I remember that there was considerable argument a few years ago about whether or not the remaining research stores of smallpox should be destroyed. This was at least partly on the grounds that we shouldn't deliberately make things go extinct on ethical grounds, although it was also thought that you never know when it might come in handy. I don't know what the outcome of that was.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I sometimes wonder about this.
What is the morality behind the concept that that we should eradicate any life forms from the face of this earth?
I know the toll in human misery will outweigh the "rights" of many parasities/organisms to exist , but could there be any adverse consequenses?

The survival of the fittest. Like all other species on this planet, we have the right to, and will push away any species that stands in our way.

Adverse consequences? Well, in theory, Rubela infection might have some benefit for us, but I suspect we would have noticed by now.

And, of course, it's niche in Nature now empty, something we like even less might take its place.

Hans

 

[El Greco]

I sometimes wonder about this.
What is the morality behind the concept that that we should eradicate any life forms from the face of this earth?
I know the toll in human misery will outweigh the "rights" of many parasities/organisms to exist , but could there be any adverse consequenses?

Well, morality is one thing, and adverse consequences another. Maybe these two will contradict sometimes. I don't think that we are able to weigh any kind of "morality" that is not somehow based on the well-being of humans in the long term. Even when we discuss the future of tigers for example, we don't care so much about tigers themselves, but more about how we will not be able to admire and study them in the future and how their extinction may affect their ecosystem with results that perhaps will eventually be detrimental to humans. It all boils down on our well-being, one way or the other.

 

[BillHoyt]

Something else, potentially worse will probably replace it.

Sadly, the usual course for these things is that the people will forget about rubella, the anti-vax crowd will delude them into believing it wasn't real and that the vaccine doesn't work, parents will stop vaccinating, and rubella will be yet another comeback kid.