Carlton Supporters Club

you claim scientific studies are showing that the threat of Zika has been greatly exaggerated

In particular, you say the CDC has slashed away at the number of confirmed cases and that suggests they are a credible institution in your eyes.  But the CDC is a very strong proponent of urgent funding of the fight against The Zika Virus.  Maybe it's a Jeckyl and Hyde thing.

Seems to me you're fighting a rearguard action since your argument that there was no link between Zika and microcephaly bit the dust.

The earlier results hinted that the 2nd trimester was the critical period, infection before or after has as yet not been related to microcephaly. This has lead some to speculate that the problem isn't the presence of Zika in the placenta but possibly a reaction from the mothers own immune system that is the root cause. I don't know the reason behind why they think that is the case.

But if you want an argument over the science, best you start another thread.  This one is about the Presidential Election.  It doesn't matter what the true position regarding Zika is.  The question is how voters will react.  Railing against the "carbon tax" might have been a nonsense in economic and scientific terms but it helped win Tony Abbott an election.

The Zika virus presents an unprecedented threat to the people of our nation, especially pregnant women. Thus far, t there have been more than 16,800 cases of Zika infection reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States and its territories, including more than 2,700 on the mainland. (That figure includes more than 100 in New Jersey.)

Laboratory tests have confirmed that 1,595 pregnant women have been infected with the virus, and tragically, 17 babies have been born in the United States with birth defects related to Zika.

...

The potential cost of a funding shortfall will be measured in human misery and even death. Every child born with microcephaly as a result of the Zika infection of the mother during pregnancy could require care that costs the family and our health-care system anywhere between $1 million and $10 million over the lifetime of the child. Every child born with microcephaly faces a difficult future, filled with intensive therapy and support. It is a price that no child — no mother, no father, no family — should have to pay, especially given that it can be avoided.

Why is this election race even a contest still?

Letter from the Directors of the CDC and NIH:
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/09/cdc_director_how_not_to_fight_the_zika_virus_opini.html

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-closing-gap-on-hillary-clinton-as-november-vote-looms-20160904-gr8qbi.html

Gee, I'd just about written off the Trumpster but maybe that was a premature extrapolation?

I will be over there about a month before the election so it may be a very interesting visit.

However, Mrs Clinton maintained healthy leads in key battleground states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina.

Hmmm ... let me see.  Do I side with some guy tapping away on a calculator or the Director of the world-renowned CDC? Tough one, that. Maybe I'll go with the CDC guy.

By the way, do you think that the CDC might prioritise testing pregnant women or that pregnant women might be more likely to seek out testing and advice?

§Only includes cases meeting the probable or confirmed CSTE case definition and does not include asymptomatic infections unless the case is a pregnant woman with a complication of pregnancy