Pacific Dengue Cases Surge, But Don't Cancel Your Holiday Yet
Article – RNZ
Dr Marc Shaw advises travellers to use insect repellent and light clothing, warning that although dengue fever is serious, it is largely preventable.A public health expert is urging anyone travelling to places with a current dengue fever outbreak to be vigilant and take sensible precautions – but stresses the chances of contracting the disease are low.
On Friday the Cook Islands declared an outbreak of the viral infection, which is spread by mosquitoes, in Rarotonga. Outbreaks have also been declared in Samoa, Fiji and Tonga.
Across the Tasman, this year has seen a cluster of cases in Townsville and Cairns in Queensland.
Last month a 12-year-old boy died in Auckland after being medically evacuated from Samoa, with severe dengue fever.
Dr Marc Shaw, a medical director at Worldwise Travellers Health Care and a professor in public health and tropical diseases at James Cook University in Townsville, said New Zealanders travelling to places with dengue fever outbreaks should take precautions to protect themselves against mosquito bites but it was important to be pragmatic.
'Yes, people are getting dengue fever, but considering the number of people that are travelling to these regions, we have to be pragmatic and think about our own circumstances.
'[Just] because you're travelling to the region, it does not mean that you're going to get the disease.
'We should just maintain vigilance and look to protect ourselves in the best ways we can, and having a holiday in these regions should not be avoided.'
Shaw said light-coloured clothes were best as mosquitoes were attracted to dark colours.
'They also tend to be more attracted to perfumes and scents.
'Two hours on either side of dusk and dawn is the time most mosquito bites occur. Mosquitoes also tend to be attracted a lot more to ankles and wrists.'
But the best form of protection was a high-strength mosquito repellent containing the active ingredient Diethyl-meta-toluamide or DEET, he said.
'The dengue fever mosquito is quite a vicious mosquito and tends to be around at this particular time of the year. It's good to apply a repellent of around about 40 percent [strength] and that will give about eight to 10 hours of protection.'
Dengue fever was 'probably the worst fever anyone could get', he added.
'Unfortunately, it tends to cause a temperature, sweats, fevers, rashes, and it has a condition which is called breakbone fever, where you get the most painful and credibly painful joints around the elbows. In its most sinister form, it can cause bleeding.'
Most people recovered from dengue fever, but those who caught the disease again were much more vulnerable to it, he added.
'Under those circumstances, it is worthwhile discussing with a travel health physician as it is perhaps appropriate that they have a dengue fever vaccine, which is just out.'
Shaw said the virus would start to wane in the affected regions from now on as the Pacific region and Queensland head into the drier winter months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
What it's like living with two autoimmune conditions: ‘I've had to adapt everything'
Exercise enthusiast and working mum Anita Hedges is determined to live life to the full, despite dealing with two autoimmune conditions. Photo / Supplied Online exclusive In What's It Like To… New Zealanders from all walks of life share stories of health & wellbeing. Here, Anita Hedges shares with Paulette Crowley what it's like to live with multiple sclerosis. It was a couple of years ago when I noticed that something didn't feel right
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
New Zealand's invisible children
When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National Party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. 'It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem,' he says. 'It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'This is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. 'It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do.' They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. 'These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported.' The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago. At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. 'He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go,' says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as 'birth tourism'. Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. 'They call it the 'anchor babies',' says Bonnett. 'The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on.' She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time: one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. 'Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything.' McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the Government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. 'Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. 'The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand,' he says. 'It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
