IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i8p1022-1035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Q fever: the Dutch policy

Author

Listed:
  • C.J.M. Bruschke
  • H.I.J. Roest
  • R.A. Coutinho

Abstract

Between 2007 and 2010, the Netherlands experienced an unprecedented outbreak of Q fever of more than 4000 human cases. Q fever infections of dairy goats, leading to abortion waves, were considered to be the cause of this outbreak. Measures to combat the outbreak had to be taken based on limited scientific knowledge and were aimed at the interruption of the infection cycle. Next to a notification obligation, hygienic and manure measures were made obligatory. A voluntary vaccination programme started in 2008 in the risk region and was made compulsory and extended to the whole country in the years thereafter. Unexpectedly, the implemented measures did not lead to the desired result and the number of patients increased instead of decreased in the second year of the epidemic. The measures were not effective, and the scientific knowledge was still limited and did not provide the necessary answers in 2008. To curb the epidemic, the control had to change from a risk-based approach to the precautionary principle which finally, during the lambing season of 2009/2010, led to the culling of more than 50,000 pregnant goats from infected herds. After taking this drastic measure, on top of the hygiene measures and compulsory vaccination of all dairy goats in the country, the number of patients decreased to the pre-outbreak level and in 2012 the epidemic could be declared ended.

Suggested Citation

  • C.J.M. Bruschke & H.I.J. Roest & R.A. Coutinho, 2016. "Q fever: the Dutch policy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 1022-1035, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:8:p:1022-1035
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1042498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2015.1042498
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2015.1042498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:8:p:1022-1035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.