Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
boblewis  
#1 Posted : 29 September 2017 08:57:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

What are peoples views about the following scenario

The UK bat population has 9 species one of which, Daubentins Bat, carries European Bat Virus, a form of rabies, at low level in the population.  In the last 30 years 16 individual bats have been identified as having the live virus among 13000 bats tested.  This virus has killed two persons in the last 15 years in the UK.

Questions

1) Should we regard the risk as so low that the preservation of this bat is greater need than the possibility of a human life being lost.

2) Should we react in a similar way as we would for other rabies virus and form a cordon sanitaire around the Daubentins bat population where an infected individual has been identified and eliminate that population.

Hard questions but the recent finding of an infected Daubentins bat in a park down south posed the question.  By the way this bat is distributed UK wide.

Waz  
#2 Posted : 29 September 2017 09:36:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Waz

My own personal viewpoint is reflect on the element and duration of exposure and the likelihood of obtaining a bite from said bat?

In essence we have 64 Million people in UK and 2 fatalities from bat bites in 15 years?  Extreme control to cull the bat species affected.  BAI for me.

Waz

boblewis  
#3 Posted : 29 September 2017 09:54:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

I actually said the population in the local area of the cordon sanitaire.

But I see that you are prepared to contemplate the decision that we should accept death of people at a very low risk level:-)

Elfin Davy 09  
#4 Posted : 29 September 2017 10:28:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Elfin Davy 09

Won't be a problem after Brexit as we can impose strict border controls on the little blighters !  :-)

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 29 September 2017 10:36:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

As a society we accept significantly higher fatality incidence from other factors.

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 29 September 2017 10:36:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

As a society we accept significantly higher fatality incidence from other factors.

6foot4  
#7 Posted : 29 September 2017 11:17:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
6foot4

So using the same risk elimination logic, we should ban all car travel because we have not eliminated the risk of death, and thousands of people die on UK roads each year.

boblewis  
#8 Posted : 29 September 2017 12:06:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

People do choose to drive though but we have had no choice in the decision to allow rabid bat populations to continue to exist.  The Bat Preservation Trust seems to be the advising body to gov. and they might be a bit biased. I presume there is a level of risk where the options change.

peterL  
#9 Posted : 29 September 2017 12:47:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
peterL

But many people have to cross road (unless they wish to be marooned) and die in this way in collision with vehicles without any choice on the matter - to play devils advocate.

Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 29 September 2017 13:33:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 29 September 2017 13:33:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Granlund40055  
#12 Posted : 29 September 2017 14:58:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Granlund40055

I obviously have too much spare time – but a welcome break from working on a Friday afternoon.

Preserve the bats! -  the risk is insignificant.  Culling the local population probably wouldn’t make a difference anyway.

The most recent case of rabies in a bat in Great Britain was in September 2017.  This brings the total to 14 cases in over 15,000 tests since 1986.

I suggest that the prevalence of rabies in the UK bat population is so low, (<0.1%) that culling a local population will not have any significant effect on the overall risk to humans.  Bat handlers should of course take precautions to prevent being bitten or otherwise coming into contact with bat saliva etc.

Perhaps of greater concern are wild deer.  Deer cause numerous road traffic accidents each year.  The AA website has a page on deer collisions and suggests deer cause 400 injuries per year.  Although there are no accurate figures for road deaths caused by deer, the deer collisions project (yes there is a website - http://www.deercollisions.co.uk ) reports:

“   (deer) pose a safety hazard to road users, and lead to substantial damage to cars and numerous human injuries as well as a number of human fatalities in most years.”

This statement is apparently based on the number of collisions per year in the UK and comparison with German data on fatal injuries from deer collisions.

So, based on that information, clearly deer are deadlier than bats. 

DEFRA’s guidance (Rabies Disease Control Strategy 2011) considers and dismisses the risk of infection from or transmission of the disease by bats.  The guidance states: -

“European bat lyssavirus (EBLV) 2 has been detected at a low prevalence in Daubenton’s bats in the UK.”

Bat Lyssaviruses: European Bat Lyssaviruses have, very occasionally, been confirmed in bats in the UK.  However, the small likelihood of contact between people and bats (apart from bat handlers) make the human risk from this disease negligible.  There are no known incidences of bat lyssaviruses becoming established in other, more risk-associated animal populations.”

“Bats: The risk of rabies passing between other mammals and bats is extremely low. Bat populations would continue to be monitored by a passive surveillance programme during a rabies outbreak”.

The gov.uk website https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rabies-in-bats updated last week also states the risk is very low.

boblewis  
#13 Posted : 29 September 2017 20:58:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Same figures I have except the 14 figure was up to 2016 and the 2017 case has yet to be added.  I agree the incidence is very low but I would think culling a local population is likely ultimately to the "dying out" of the virus so reducing a very small risk to zero.  Is it worth it?  One would think the odd victim we are accepting may happen might have a different view.

As an aside it is interesting to note that the Scottish case was a bat worker who was unvaccinated and did not go forward for post exposure treatment even though aware of the bite from a Daubenton bat. This opens another can of worms about people.

Ian Bell2  
#14 Posted : 29 September 2017 23:38:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

While the death of an individual would indeed be tragic, the risk doesn't have to be reduced to zero - as we all know 'SRAIRP' is the legal test.

In numbers deaths of 1x10^-6 per annum is considered to be Broadley Acceptable according to R2P2. So the estimate of death to a bat handler is???

boblewis  
#15 Posted : 30 September 2017 14:23:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Originally Posted by: Ian Bell2 Go to Quoted Post

While the death of an individual would indeed be tragic, the risk doesn't have to be reduced to zero - as we all know 'SRAIRP' is the legal test.

In numbers deaths of 1x10^-6 per annum is considered to be Broadley Acceptable according to R2P2. So the estimate of death to a bat handler is???

As this is not H&S strictly but are DEfRA led then perhaps the strict liabilty test of their legislation should apply.  Is SFARP the right test - I do not know the answer.  As for bat handlers the active monitoring programme has undertaken  15000 examinations in 30 years ie around 500 per year with 0.5 positives per annum on average.  So the risk for them is higher as they are specifically looking at Daubentons bat.  The use of vaccination is the handlers choice it seems.

We might also pose the question as to whether a relatively cheap solution, ie selective population culling, can be rejected on the pure basis of an extremely low risk.  If there were more information on specific geographic locations of infected bats and potential clustering this might also affect how we approach the matter.

Edited by user 30 September 2017 14:29:48(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

chris42  
#16 Posted : 02 October 2017 08:55:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: boblewis Go to Quoted Post

 culling a local population is likely ultimately to the "dying out" of the virus

Culling the locals seems a bit drastic, but I guess if there is no-one left for the bats to bite, it would work.

Perhaps if we leave them alone they would respond in kind. 

Another thing to consider is can they spread rabies to other wildlife and that in turn becomes more of a problem in future.

Perhaps culling a few may be the best way to go. However, I’m not into bats or rabies as such, but is there a cure / vaccine we could give to the bats rather than the easy option of kill first ask questions later.

A Kurdziel  
#17 Posted : 02 October 2017 09:00:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

People are regularly killed by cattle, pigs and even sheep so they should be eliminated. All wild animals pose a risk including biting insects so they should go but of course the biggest risk is posed by humans, so their days are also numbered.

I am not a robot- honest

boblewis  
#18 Posted : 03 October 2017 12:18:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

But perhaps other humas are the biggest risk to humans!!! :-)

Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.