OFF: Re: Foot & Mouth

[M Holmes]

>
> OK. So like with a bad case of flu, first the cow gets sick, then the
> cow gets better. Meanwhile, surely a slightly peaky cow is more
> useful than a dead one? From what I understand, you can cook and eat
> a critter that was absolutely rife with foot-and-mouth perfectly
> safely, and even if you are unlucky enough to catch something from
> it, it's going to be nothing compared to the foul cold you caught
> staggering in the end-of-winter cold and wet. Thank heavens no one
> shoots me and burns me when I get the flu and can't make it in to
> work.
>
> "Not clear on the reasons for this" I think sums it up. What about
> this paltry little disease that makes spazzing over it worth 9
> *billion* quid is entirely unclear, and any explanation is completely
> absent in gov't statements or media coverage while they all wrestle
> back and forth over what to kill when. I think that's what really
> irks me abou this.

It's pretty simple: an animal with Foot and Mouth loses about 20%
productive capacity and is infectious to other animals. A country with
endemic disease loses export markets which adds losses on top of the 20%
assuming that the local populace doesn't absorb all output. So basically
if you have to kill less than 20% of your animals to eliminate the
disease then you're ahead on the economics. In 1967 when the outbreak
lasted less than a year, the UK killed less than 1% of animals. 20%
currently qould be around 16 million animals. If they get anywhere close
to that they'll have lost to the disease anyway.

ObWierd: Being in Times Square New York and seeing a ticker for the
         number of F&M sheep in the UK.

ObWonder: We haven't seen any animal rights folks lamenting the poor
widdle sheep.