Questions
@Roba Olana
❕
Always start by explaining our process.
- One of the barriers for rigorous measure of biosecurity pre-arrival is the significant cost and impact on trade. (Langwig et al., 2015) Given the other elements of this stage (testing, quarantine, and banning), how significant is the cost of testing as a limitation for the biosecurity measures?
- In the invasive front, host culling is a measure that can be taken. Is the culling contingent on the testing result?
- A key challenge when using culling to eradicate a pathogen (as opposed to reducing host densities to decrease transmission) is the identification and removal of all infected individuals, which is difficult even with effective diagnostic tools. Does the difficulty have to do with the "effective" diagnostic device limitations?
- Draconian measures are often undertaken to target a small area on a previously unoccupied region as soon as an invading pathogen is detected. (Langwig et al., 2015)
- What were the issues with these responses for Bd:
- Anti-fungal chemicals directly applied on bodies of the amphibians. Is it just that there haven't been any field trails?
- Using anti fungal probiotic bacteria
- On roles of researchers:
- In pre-arrival: would there be an added advantage to a field use device besides convenience? If they were to get the results faster, would they not release? Would they cull the animals?
- Who uses those devices? The researchers directly or hired personnel? Researchers oversight or is spread assessment carried out by governments?
- Who carries out prevalence assessments in the invasion and epidemic stage?
- Are they aware of frequent testing carried out as part of risk assessment? (Use case 1)