行動美容師 小慧 wrote:
無知，其實比病毒更可怕。
"世界衛生組織(WHO) 針對狂犬病流行的有效阻斷，提出大規模讓犬隻接種狂病疫苗，才是一再被證實最有效的方法。"
大量撲殺，甚至造成了反效果，狗有地域性，原本佔山為王的被抓走，就會有無法掌握的流浪動物再進入人居環境，即使不是狂犬病，也提高帶來傳染病的風險。
全文詳見：http://www.who.int/rabies/animal/dogs/en/
http://www.ettoday.net/social/comments/249216.htm
無知真的很可怕，有多少人是對加料過的中文資料隨便就服用了的。ＷＨＯ有說撲殺等於反效果跟狗的地域性對防疫有用？
Dog destruction alone is not effective in rabies control. There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies. In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities. However, the targeted and humane removal of unvaccinated, ownerless dogs may be effective when used as a supplementary measure to mass vaccination.
In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities.這句話該翻譯成狗保團體看到殺狗就不接受（會開始扯後腿）嗎？有沒有更好的翻譯？
dontfeedwilddog wrote:
In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities.這句話該翻譯成狗保團體看到殺狗就不接受（會開始扯後腿）嗎？有沒有更好的翻譯？...(恕刪)
你翻譯的沒有錯, 在"這篇"WHO的文章中也未提到流浪貓狗的地域性
但是請翻譯完整句才不會斷章取義或誤導讀者
WHO wishes to reiterate the recommendations of the Expert Consultation on Rabies held in Geneva, October 2004 (TRS 931, WHO 2005):
Dog destruction alone is not effective in rabies control. There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies. In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities. However, the targeted and humane removal of unvaccinated, ownerless dogs may be effective when used as a supplementary measure to mass vaccination.
世衛組織不斷宣導他們2005年就在日內瓦公佈的專家建議 :
撲殺流浪狗來防疫這一點, 從來都沒有實際數據支持
(白話叫口說無憑, 大家只管殺, 不管有沒有用)
且可能會被當地動保團體反對.
反而是大量的接種疫苗才是有效的控制方法.(世衛專家的建議)
=============================================================================
台灣民眾真的是很容易被名嘴 和 愛報導猩羶色的媒體洗腦
就我而言, 相信WHO絕對比相信台灣名嘴和媒體要可靠 !
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel. - Jimi Hendrix
dontfeedwilddog wrote:
無知真的很可怕，有多少人是對加料過的中文資料隨便就服用了的。ＷＨＯ有說撲殺等於反效果跟狗的地域性對防疫有用？
Dog destruction alone is not effective in rabies control. There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies. In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities. However, the targeted and humane removal of unvaccinated, ownerless dogs may be effective when used as a supplementary measure to mass vaccination.
In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities.這句話該翻譯成狗保團體看到殺狗就不接受（會開始扯後腿）嗎？有沒有更好的翻譯？(恕刪)
路過翻譯一下，整段話的重點應該是如果只是殺狗的話對於狂犬病疫情控制成效不會很好。沒有證據顯示只是殺狗的話可以有效的控制狗群密度及狂犬病的擴散。抓狗也有可能引起地方社區團體的反感。
我想很多動保團體翻譯的時候自動跳過 "ALONE"這個單字，變成殺狗成效對狂犬病疫情沒有成效，但原文的意思是如果"只有"殺狗的話才會沒有成效...至於反效果..恩這段話我只看到not effective，沒成效跟反效果意思差很多...
下一句話是才重點
However, the targeted and humane removal of unvaccinated, ownerless dogs may be effective when used as a supplementary measure to mass vaccination.
大量接種疫苗配上鎖定特定及人道方式移除沒抗體(沒受過疫苗)、沒主人的狗可能會比較有效
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X