Book Reviews
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 29, Heft 2, S. 219-227
ISSN: 1360-0591
20 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 29, Heft 2, S. 219-227
ISSN: 1360-0591
On 18 December Defra revealed that during 2018, 32,601 badgers were killed, bringing the total number slaughtered under licence since 2013 to almost 67,000.1 'Effectiveness' claims relate not to the impact on cattle TB, but rather to the ability of the contracted shooters to kill sufficient badgers to satisfy their licence requirements, which they can hardly fail to reach given that target numbers are 'adjusted' by Natural England part-way through the culls according to the contractors' progress. Sixty per cent of the badgers have been killed by 'controlled shooting', a method rejected by both the government's Independent Expert Panel2 and the BVA3 because of animal welfare concerns. During 2018 Natural England directly monitored just 89 (0.43 per cent) of controlled shooting events. It is deplorable that the chief veterinary officer (CVO) continues to support the roll-out of a policy that permits controlled shooting, when veterinary organisations have condemned the method on animal welfare grounds. It is particularly concerning that the CVO appears to have deflected responsibility for humaneness to Natural England's chief scientist who, as far as we are aware, has no background in animal welfare science. It is also unacceptable for government to attribute reductions in herd bovine TB (bTB) incidents over the first four years of culling in the original 'pilot' cull zones to its badger culling policy.4 Independent analysis of this and more recent data from the Gloucestershire pilot cull zone5 indicate that new herd incidence is rising sharply, with 22 herd breakdowns in the 12 months to September 2017 (an increase of 29.4 per cent when compared to the 17 breakdowns reported by APHA for the previous 12 months). Analysis of the 2018 figures indicates that both incidence and prevalence are now rising even faster, with a further 24 herd breakdowns occurring between 1 January and 5 December 2018. To date, the government and its officials cite data that are two years out of date, but have declined to comment on this emerging evidence that, far from resulting in a substantial disease control benefit, badger culls may be leading to a sharp increase in bTB in cattle. Natural England's chief scientist and the UK's CVO continue to endorse a failing and inhumane policy, bringing their offices into serious disrepute. We urge them, and the BVA, to reconsider their support for further badger culling, and instead focus on the actual cause of bTB's epidemic spread – a cattle skin test with a sensitivity of only 50 per cent,6,7 and the ongoing problems associated with cattle movements and on-farm biosecurity.
BASE
We are writing to express our extreme concern following recent media coverage1, 2 relating to the methodology being used by contractors to kill badgers under licence, as part of the government's policy to control bovine TB in cattle. The coverage relates to the shooting of badgers that have been captured in live traps. Covert video footage (https://bit.ly/2Eud1iR ) from Cumbria shows a trapped badger being shot with a firearm at close range, following which it appears to take close to a minute to stop moving. The contractor clearly observes the animal during this time but makes no attempt to expedite the death of the badger and prevent further suffering, as required by the current Natural England best practice guide which states: 'Immediately after shooting, the animal should be checked to ensure it is dead, and if there is any doubt, a second shot must be taken as soon as possible.'3 The conversation between the contractor and his companion also suggests they were considering moving the badger to another site before finally bagging the carcase, again breaching the best practice guide. While the footage only relates to the experience of a single badger, and while the degree to which the badger was conscious in the period immediately following the shot is unclear, we can by no means be certain that the badger did not suffer. It also raises serious questions about the training, competence and behaviour of contractors, in relation to both badger welfare, and biosecurity. This adds to existing concerns relating to the humaneness of 'controlled shooting' (targeting free-roaming badgers with rifles), which continues to be a permitted method under culling licences, in spite of the reservations expressed by both the government-commissioned Independent Expert Panel in its 2014 report,4 and the BVA, which concluded in 2015 that it 'can no longer support the continued use of controlled shooting as part of the badger control policy'.5 (However, it has since continued to support the issuing of licences which permit the method). The BVA has consistently indicated its support for what it calls the 'tried and tested' method of trapping and shooting, but has thus far failed to provide comprehensive and robust evidence for the humaneness of this method. Figure1 Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint Natural England reported that its monitors observed 74 (just over 0.6 per cent) of controlled shooting events for accuracy and humaneness During 2017, almost 20,000 badgers were killed under licence across 19 cull zones, around 60 per cent of which were killed by controlled shooting, the remainder being trapped and shot.6 Natural England reported that its monitors observed 74 (just over 0.6 per cent) of controlled shooting events for accuracy and humaneness. No information has been provided on the extent to which trapping and shooting activities were monitored. This raises serious concerns about the extent of suffering that might be experienced by very large numbers of animals, for which contractors are not being held to account. If contractors reach their maximum culling targets set by Natural England for 2018, as many as 41,000 additional badgers could be killed.7 The extent to which these animals will suffer is once again being left in the hands of contractors, with woefully inadequate oversight, and in the face of anecdotal evidence of breaches of best practice guidance. This situation is clearly unacceptable from an animal welfare perspective and it is our view that by endorsing the policy, the BVA is contradicting the principles contained within its own animal welfare strategy.8 We therefore urge the BVA to withdraw its support for any further licensed badger culling, and the RCVS to make it clear that any veterinarian who provides support for culling activities that result in unnecessary and avoidable animal suffering could face disciplinary proceedings. The veterinary profession has no business supporting this licensed mass killing with all its inherent negative welfare and biosecurity implications, and for which the disease control benefits are, at best, extremely uncertain. We believe the continued support for the culls by veterinary bodies in the face of poor evidence for its efficacy damages the credibility of the profession, and that same support in the face of potential animal suffering on a large scale undermines its reputation. We stand ready to discuss these issues in more detail.
BASE
In: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:99775583-6698-44df-850a-830fe9d7b2b1
Background: Since late 2015, an epidemic of Yellow fever virus (YFV) has caused over 6,554 suspected cases in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, including 387 deaths. We sought to understand the spatial spread of this YFV outbreak to optimise the use of the limited available vaccine stock. Methods: We jointly analysed datasets describing the epidemic of YFV, vector suitability, human demography and mobility in Central Africa in order to understand and predict the expansion of YFV. We used a standard logistic model to infer the district YFV infection risk over the course of the epidemic in the region. Findings: Early spread of YFV was characterized by fast exponential growth (doubling time of 5-7 days) and fast spatial expansion (49 districts reporting cases after only three months) from Luanda, the capital of Angola. Early invasion was positively correlated with high population density (0·52, 95% CI: 0·34, 0·66). The further away locations were from Luanda the later the invasion date (0·60, 95% CI: 0·52, 0·66). Districts with higher population densities also featured higher risks of sustained transmission. A model that captured human mobility and vector suitability successfully discriminated districts with high risk of invasion from others. If at the start of the epidemic sufficient vaccines had been available to target 50 out of 313 districts in the area, our model would have correctly identified 27 (84%) of the 32 districts that were eventually affected. Interpretation: Our findings reveal the contributions of ecological and demographic factors to the ongoing spread of the YFV outbreak and provide estimates for where vaccines may be prioritised, although other constraints (e.g. vaccine supply and delivery) need to be accounted for before such insights may be translated into policy.
BASE
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.
BASE