Dr. Julie Smith's Dairy Blog

Laboratory release leads to limited outbreak in England in 2007

Here is the play by play:  The first case was a beef herd in Surrey.  The diagnosis was confirmed August 3.  An immediate nationwide stop movement order on livestock went into effect.  A protection zone extending 3 km (a little less than 2 miles) and a 6.2 mile radius surveillance zone were established.

A second case was found in cattle near the first farm on August 6.  Exports of animals and animal products were shut down.  By August 8 the vaccination contractor was prepared to mobilize.  Vaccination was not authorized at any time during the outbreak.

On September 8 the surveillance zone was lifted per protocol 30 days after culling, cleaning and disinfection of the second premises were completed.  Movement restrictions were lifted.

Within a week of lifting the movement bans, three additional cases of FMD were identified.  Movement restrictions were reintroduced September 11.  It was later determined that the fifth case identified was linked with the second one and was the start of the “second outbreak”.  This case was outside the initial surveillance zone.  How the infection travelled from one to the other remains a mystery.

Three more cases were identified by the end of September, the last one on September 30, exactly 6 years after the last case was found in the 2001 outbreak.

Restrictions on movements were lifted progressively through October according to established risk zones.  All restrictions were removed by the end of December.  Meanwhile England also suffered an incursion of two other foreign animal diseases: Bluetongue and Avian Influenza.

Eight premises were directly affected and lost their livestock.  All other livestock farms were affected, too, making the ramifications of a localized outbreak widespread and costly.

In some respects the government response was greatly improved compared with 2001.  Or maybe it was that speed and spread of the outbreak were greatly improved?

Continued on Part 4 of 4

One case found in Northern Ireland

Less than two weeks after the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom in 2001, the slaughter of a herd of sheep was ordered in Northern Ireland.  Animals had been traced as dangerous contacts and were confirmed to have FMD.  Northern Ireland came under virtual “house arrest.”

Not only were farmers directly affected by the prohibition on sales and exports of animals, but the general public felt the effects.  Elections, sports events, and even a protest by the Orange order were postponed or cancelled.

Good luck and good judgment were credited for preventing the situation from getting worse.

Nevertheless, the ramifications of one case were felt deeply and widely in agricultural communities.

Continued on Part 3 of 4

Foot-and-mouth disease hoax in New Zealand

In 2005 a letter was sent to New Zealand’s minister of agriculture (similar to our federal Secretary of Agriculture) claiming that foot-and-mouth disease had been released on Waiheke Island, a small island just north of Auckland (on the North Island).  While the possibility of the threat being a hoax was considered very likely, steps were taken to immediately communicate with farmers and the public regarding the situation.  Just under a week later a second letter was received by a newspaper.  Shortly after, the threat was officially declared a hoax.  No cases of disease occurred, but the response still required a significant deployment of government resources.

The response to the situation is held up as an example of a good crisis communication (Ch. 7 of Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach by Timothy Sellnow and others).  It is interesting that farmers were upset when the media started calling them before they had heard about the situation from the government.  A hotline for farmers to call was established and public meetings were held to facilitate two-way communication about the situation.  Veterinary surveillance was conducted and reporting of suspicious signs was encouraged.  When the threat was confirmed to be a hoax and no signs of disease had been seen, the crisis was over.  While some would say a crisis was averted, my take is that the crisis in this situation did not escalate and was resolved in a short period of time.

If only it was always that easy.