Outbreak by nature, but not by name

IF, like me, you were under the mistaken apprehension that meningococcal disease or meningitis was no longer the deadly threat it once was, how shocking this past week has been.

Not least of all, of course, for the families tragically affected by this seemingly indiscriminate disease.

Previously, the meningococcal B bacteria has been responsible for just over 90 per cent of meningitis cases in New Zealand.

After the meningococcal B vaccine was developed and made available to New Zealanders in 2004, incidents of the disease decreased dramatically. Now, it seems, we are in dire need of a vaccination for the meningococcal C bacteria which causes meningitis.

Here is where the indiscriminate part comes in _ many of us carry the germs that can lead to meningococcal C linked meningitis, but not all of us develop the disease. And no one knows why.

Its early symptoms are similar to the flu, and it can worsen quickly.

Northland Health officials say there are not sufficient cases to warrant it being called an outbreak or epidemic, and that case numbers are similar to last year.

But this year, the disease appears to be more virulent.

Perhaps our definition of what constitutes an outbreak could be redefined, so it is not bound by numbers, and toxicity can be taken into account.

It may seem a small point, but to lodge a message in the public consciousness requires repetition, and as much impact as can be gathered, to drive the message.

The families who have bravely spoken out after losing family members to this disease have communicated a common message: ``We do not want this to happen to anyone else''.

To get that message across, I would suggest we throw away the rule book when it comes to what constitutes an outbreak.

Two young people have died from a disease that has seemingly risen from nowhere. Where I come from, that is an outbreak. A bloody tragic outbreak that the entire region needs to know about, so as a community, we can do whatever we can to stop more deaths.