I think that "controlling" the spreading of a disease involves putting forth your best effort to contain the spread of a disease, both biologically and geographically.

It is undisputable that the availability of quality information is invaluable.

But, at what point should we consider an infectious disease to be "under control"?

Is it when the number of new cases has not risen in a given period of time?

Is it when the new cases has been kept to a specific geographic area?

Is it when the number of counted cases has dropped to 0?

What is everyone's standard?

Mike

When the public can accept the disease. West Nile kills less people than the flu, and West Nile's an "epidemic," (even thought it's happening in many countries, which would make it a pandemic,) but the flu is just another old disease.

So out of curiosity, would you consider HIV in poor African nations to be under control?

The people are certainly aware of it, and know how it is spread. They either don't have, for lack of a better term, the tools necessary to prevent or treat the disease effectively?

Mike

No, the public obviously doesn't accept the AIDS pandemic.

I'd say a disease is "under control" when the U.S. citizens start thinking, "out of sight, out of mind" in relation to it.

I think a disease is considered 'under control' if either of the following conditions are met:

1) There are effective, widespread vaccines and very few new infections.

2) The disease isn't particularly communicable. For example, hepatitis B can live in a drop of dried blood on the counter for hours, whereas the HIV virus can live only inside the body. Hep B is much more communicable (good thing the first condition has been met for that one!)

Obviously, the definition of 'under control' will differ from country to country. HIV isn't under control in Africa, for certain, but there seem to be fewer cases here now. I don't know if this is a sign that the diease is 'under control', or if it's simply not the media issue of the day anymore....

There are no vaccines for the cold. Does that mean that the common cold is "out of control?"

Good point, I should qualify that with 'the disease must be potentially lethal to non-immunocompromised recipients.'