Talk:2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses C‑class Low‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Previous Escape

This article and the reference it uses claims that the last outbreak that escaped from this lab was in 1970, but the news article in todays Science magazine says January, 1960[[1]]. Are these two different outbreaks, or does one source have its dates wrong?

Images

Images are always welcome. However they must be licensed and tagged - see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags - otherwise they will be removed. Bridgeplayer 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice Bridgeplayer, due care and attention will henceforth be taken! TJBlackwell 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Location

The media are wrong in referring to it as Wanborough, Surrey, which is a hamlet. See the entry for Flexford to understand the reason for the confusion and refer to the DEFRA map. John 18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFRA protection zone order contains an exact grid reference - SU92491 50703 which can be converted to decimal lat. long. using the converter at Streetmap.co.uk. This places it between Flexford and Wyke. The Flexford to Wyke road was reported as closed on the BBC travel page but is no longer listed. John 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated because the farming business which owns the cattle is spread over three sites, potentially all with FMD virus because of normal movements of staff and equipment during the incubation period. At least one of those sites is rented grazing. The BBC news coverage, some of it shot from helicopters before an aerial exclusion zone was set up, has the infected cattle very close to Flexford. The DEFRA press conference referred to the "home farm" as if distinct from the actual site of the outbreak. I don't have specific cites for this, the info is scattered through Saturday's news reporting and the DEFRA notices, but the pattern is consistent with my own farming experience. Since the herd affected was not dairy cattle, there wouldn't be the regular movement for milking. Zhochaka 08:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zhochaka. I'm surprised by the aerial exclusion zone, I can't believe that's on biosecurity grounds, more likely so that the media can't upset the over sensitive types with pictures of dead animals as they munch on their burgers. I despise spin.

Are there countries which tolerate, tacitly or otherwise, FMD ? John 12:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Foot-and-mouth disease for the answer. MikeHobday 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went down there on Saturday morning to try and get some images, the helicopters were quite useful in pinning down the location at that time! http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10985 . I didn't get any cow pictures though. I'm happy for any of these pictures to be used, but I don't know if they are worth using? Phooto 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; I think the image to get (perhaps screen capture from a recording of TV ?) was the masked men and a dead cow being lifted by a tractor. John 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd got that I would have sold it already! ;) Phooto 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this need a Wikipedia article?

Eh? Funkynusayri 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth crisis need an article, you might as well ask. This could (heaven forbid) turn out to be as devastating as that outbreak, so it needs to be documented. _TheIslander 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't particularly accurate. We don't (or aren't supposed to) make wikipedia articles because of 'what ifs'. However even if this turns out not much more then what is here, it's probably big & noteable enough to warrant a seperate article Nil Einne 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is fairly accurate, my point's perfectly valid thanks ;). Just missed out the bit about notability right now. _TheIslander 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In future, would an average member of the public expect to find an article ? I say yes John 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--it's featured in news across the world, (and is fuel for the international viewpoint that British beef is a biological hazard) and so warrants an article. --Pvednes 11:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need this article because we record significant events be it this or a bridge collapse in the US. The test is whether there are implications beyond the incident itself which there are here - in the short term for British agriculture and for other countries who import our products and, probably, in the long-term for biosecurity. Bridgeplayer 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. Even if there were no implications beyond the event itself, that fact wouldn't exclude it from being encyclopedic. John 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively I disagree. Notability right now is all tha matters. We don't and should not consider that it could be big so we should have an article because you never know. This is way too crystal ballish and is not the way things are supposed to work. Seperate articles should not be created until and unless it's clear that a seperate article is warranted. We aren't supposed to create an article then later decide to merge when we realise it wasn't as big as we thought it was. Instead, what we should do is add new details to existing articles until it's clear a split is warranted. While it's true in this case, this was not a problem, I think it's important editors understand that we don't care and don't consider what a subject may or may not be one day, only what it is now Nil Einne 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

It boils down to 2 issues, 1) the method of release from the laboratory, and 2) the means of transmission. On the latter, I can't help thinking the the stream from Pirbright up river to Normandy is the method because it's so obvious. The sewage transmission theory was a non starter because it would have had to travel ~10m uphill for 4km. If it wasn't for the fact that the grid reference for the 3rd infection source, which is 1½ km away from the 1st, had been made deliberately vague by DEFRA (+/-100m instead of the previous +/-1m) we would be able to see for certain whether it was downstream from the 1st source. The 2nd source is not significant as it would likly have been caused by farm employees/materials. Using similar reasoning to the sewage argument, the stream is unlikly to back up 4km and rise 10m during flooding, therefore it's seems to me as if some form of wildlife has carried the virus along the watercourse, deer and rats being the two most prevalent, of which, water rats being the obvious candidate. John 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders if the Central Veterinary Laboratory [2] at Addlestone, within the 3km protection zone, are trying to outdo their collegues at Pirbright ;-) John 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the facts and findings so far -

The waste pumping system at the Pirbright labs was badly designed/maintained, resulting in partially treated material surging out through manhole covers. The area suffered abnormally high rainfall in the period. A stream runs adjacent to the premises. Source : FMD 2007 Final Epidemiology Report 07 Sep 2007

Reported examples of virus survival include 20 weeks on hay or straw; up to 14 days in faeces; up to 39 days in urine; up to 6 months in slurry; up to 3 days on soil in summer and 28 days on soil in autumn; up to 50 days in water. Sources : DEFRA - Veterinary Surveillance Strategy, 5 June 2006, Mahnel et al 1977. John 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third escape from lab in 45 years?

I expect that resent developments are bound to re-light the suspicion that the 2001 out brake was due to testing live vaccines (if the latest is confirmed, that suggests three). I am not going to add it though, because no one, as yet, has (publicly) come out and said it. A official statement is to be made in the next half hour however. Here is a link to one article about the 2001 suspicions if anyone is interested in the background to this: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 August 2007

What suspicion ? I never heard any until your comment. John 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth crisis doesn't mention anything either which suggest to me this is one of the numerous conspiracy theories that float around Nil Einne 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 out-brake article was not created until July 2004 and peoples memories are short, which is maybe why its not mentioned. Here is another couple of examples from back then. Foot & Mouth Outbreak, GM Vaccine and Bio-warfare[4] Rense.com Foot And Mouth Released In Agraterrorism Attack On UK? By Patricia Doyle, PhD [5] Some of these questions where never successfully answered so Occam's_Razor needs to be wielded with great care still.
Dr. Harash Narang who is mentioned in the example I posted yesterday, has just published his letter to Gordon Brown PM, upon the matter. He was the scientist who first warned about CJD.[6]--Aspro 13:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro has this open letter been mentioned in the press, if it has i think we can quote from it. Also does Dr Narang need a wikipage, as a he seems to be linked to several worldwide outbreaks. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hypnosadist. I will draw a line after this post, as I have too many other things to do at the moment. My intention was only to point out to other editors that there are still unanswered questions from years ago and current events may throw more light on them. New conclusions may help mitigate any future occurrence.

I do not think the main stream press would publish his letter. In these situations the government drip-feed reporters juicy snippets of information in return for them not sniffing around anything that may embarrass a serving government minister. Narang was very critical of the current Deputy Whip Nick_Brown when he was in charge of the last outbreak as the agricultural minister (so, enough said?). Also, other Ph.D. s in the UK may be reluctant to come out and say “we told you so” in case they receive the same treatment Narang claims to have had. The problem 'partly' appears to be, that most politicians (with the odd exception like Tam_Dalyell) do not have the slightest clue about science. It is though the very attribute that makes them keen politicians, ensure that they will always listen to the wrong type of scientist. They do not seem to realise (or perhaps they are just beginning at long last) that all these laminar flow cabinets with their HEPA filters and containment procedures were not installed to stop viruses escaping ( people who exhibit such childlike naive frighten me, since their first inclination is to shoot the messenger when things go wrong) but simply to reduce the risk of them escaping and causing an infectious outbreak. Labs are staffed by humans; equipment can brake down; and there will be acts of god or the Flying_Spaghetti_Monster sooner or later. See also:Human_reliability. Telling airline pilots that they will die if they fly into a mountain will not stop aircraft flying into mountains. The question of whether these risks are acceptable enough, to be conducted on mainland UK, is up to the government ministers. Perhaps it was telling, that Hilary_Benn who is Secretary_of_State_for_Environment,_Food_&_Rural_Affairs instead of saying that he was doing everything to find out the cause of the current outbreak, used instead the phrase “may have caused” as though he is still hasn't learnt the lesson and is still only looking for politicly acceptable reasons rather than all reasons. The UK can afford the odd outbreak but not another epi.

Narang, due to his BSE work is probably notable enough and he is still very active. Lesser people have articles on WP. I note that he is not mentioned, even in passing, on either the CJD nor BSE articles.
Although the open letter is on his own website, this alone may be good enough to quote in this instance. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29--Aspro 11:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest outbreak is a good example of why culling is more effective than inoculation. With the later: one never knows -if or when- the diseases has been completely eliminated. Therefore, one has to continually vaccinate, not only at greater overall expense in the long term but with the risk that ones overseas customers are going to import the disease into their own country along with your produce. It is also, a good example of the out right stupidity of placing such a facility where its buffer zone for occasional escapes (and there will always be escapes) is thousands upon thousands of acres of high density farms. But I can't decide if that has a place in the article.--Aspro 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little bird has told me that a big cheese will touch down at Heathrow tomorrow. A visit to Pirbright is on the cards. Why! Don't everybody know already ? Perhaps [his] visit would not have been necessary if ... Oh! what's the point...? I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. --Aspro 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't inline footnotes make a mess !?

As someone who has always used inline references I'm now changing my opinion because I find it's getting increasingly difficult to edit this article and that is demotivating me. I think that it's the way WP implements them - the reference details in between the text destroying readablility when editing. Perhaps there's a better way. Any suggestions ? John 06:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to edit when editors stick to the standard format or layout. Then the eye can skip over citations as a self contained block. It only uses approx ten character more (for the CR at the end of each line). Just cut & past from Wikipedia:Citation_templates.

Look at the formated layout (in the edit mode) for this example below:

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus.^[1] Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla. Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. ^[2] Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.--Aspro 08:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just looked at the wiki code in the article -yes it is very difficult to keep track of where one is. So after “Outbreak” I have broken the coding up into into chunks.--Aspro 09:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ! thanks, I thought that way may add a CR but obviously not. To get the footnote number next to the text, which appears to be the standard way of writing it I removed the CR before the first <ref>. I'll amend the article as well. Thanks John 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cordell, Bruce R. (2001). Manual of the Planes. Wizards of the Coast. pp. pp. 198-203. ISBN 0-7869-1850-8. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Bailey, David H.; Borwein, Peter; Borwein, Jonathan… (1999-06-25), "The Quest for Pi" (PDF), Mathematical Intelligencer, 19 (1): 50–57, ISSN 0343-6993 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak

Since the 1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak was apparently as notable as the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth crisis it deserves an article otherwise there would be a temporal systemic bias. See also Wikipedia:Recentism. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I wonder whether the quantity of info. in this article is encyclopedic and whether it couldn't be reduced down to a single paragraph once the outbreak is over, in which case it doesn't deserve a separate article. I suppose it comes down to what WP is. John 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is big. Why not keep all this information - as long as it is accurate. It does no harm and may be useful, whereas condensing and mergeing will lose info. -- SGBailey 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

foot-and-mouth or foot and mouth ?

Why the hyphens? -- SGBailey 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause that's the name of the disease - it's hyphonated. _TheIslander 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? DEFRA spell it Foot and mouth. -- SGBailey 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, says the wikipedia article, for a start. Also the BBC... actually, good point. Googling it brings up a nice mix of hyphonated and un-hyphonated. My personal opinion is that hyphonated sounds and looks much better - more 'right', but I can't think of a definitive source for an answer (and no, I don;t think Defra count). _TheIslander 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'two' diseases; it is a singular nominative foot-and-mouth. The hyphens help to make this clear. --Aspro 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realise I'm late to this but this is my first comment in Wiki so its more sort of trying things out. There is a definitive international source for this - the International Committee on Viral Taxonomy (ICTV) are the people who define naming and categorisation of viruses. They currently hyphenate (and I suspect they always did) - this can be found for FMDV here https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/p/taxonomy-history?taxnode_id=202101961 Myrmtjf11 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 Sep 2007 Egham outbreak

Looks as if it's centred on Milton Park Farm. The protection order co-ordinates give – [7] John 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales compensation denied by Defra

I find it remarkable that the tremendous stooshie that has ensued around this topic outwith England has escaped the attention of the editors of this article, eg:

Scots farmers abandon hope of Westminster foot-and-mouth pay-out

--Mais oui! 10:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]