Ebola virus outbreak

Rhys Essien

Interesting Q+A on it here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/ebola-zaire-peter-piot-outbreak

He says there are a lot of Indians working in West Africa and if one of them picked it up and went back to India then a pandemic begins.India with a population of over 1 billion and all that.

Sclosages

When someone sneezes or coughs, the amount of tiny particles of snot that flies out of them is extraordinary. Think of being spray-hosed! That **** lands on you?

FullblownRose

Deleted User wrote: »

Hospital in Ballinasloe, Near the A&E department.

That's good. Do you remember what the notice said?

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure!

Sclosages

I was in local hospital A&E 2 weeks ago. There was a sign up along the lines of the following:

Travelled from West Africa?
Pain & Fever?
Inform nurse immediately.

FullblownRose

Where people recover from Ebola, the main treatment/care they are given is what, i.v fluids to hydrate them..?

snubbleste

Following an analysis of disease spread patterns and airline traffic data, experts have predicted there is a 75% chance ebola could be in France by October 24, while there is a 50% chance it could have also hit Britain. Estimates have been based on air traffic remaining at full capacity

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ebola-crisis-virus-could-reach-the-uk-and-france-by-the-end-of-october-scientists-claim-9775693.html

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ebola-crisis-virus-could-reach-the-uk-and-france-by-the-end-of-october-scientists-claim-9775693.html

Time to move to Madagascar.

the_monkey

Some doctor on the guardian was saying that an outbreak in Europe could be controlled - but not in Africa / India --- why does he think it would be so "easy" to contain in Europe ?

FullblownRose

the_monkey wrote: »

Some doctor on the guardian was saying that an outbreak in Europe could be controlled - but not in Africa / India --- why does he think it would be so "easy" to contain in Europe ?

The usual, Europeans have better infrastructure like hospitals, and the lack of funereal practices like family members washing or embalming their ebola infected dead. Basically, it means Europe is cleaner due to more sophisticated medical facilities and so on, so Ebola can't spread so fast. We're not living in such close quarters in europe, compared to parts of africa and india where it is more overpopulated.

the_monkey

Is Ebola contagious during the incubation period or not ?

FullblownRose

the_monkey wrote: »

Is Ebola contagious during the incubation period or not ?

I think so. As I understand it, you can be contagious even before you show symptoms.

nyarlothothep

There seems to be a certain sense of over-confidence that it can be contained in Western countries. I hope they are right, it's more likely we can contain it in Europe/US but we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves either as this breeds complacence. It's a complete humanitarian disaster, it's almost being 'let' spread, why is this? Why not hit it hard in the infection soup bowls, Liberia etc with a sustained international effort. It's going to cost less now than it will when it becomes a full blown global pandemic if this paltry response continues. I mean it would have cost less a few months ago than it is costing now to send 3000 troops over and to enact further measures, if there was some sustained response. There should also be some form of tracking/restrictions on air travel to these countries. People who aren't scientists/health workers/military flying in should be monitored for three weeks, maybe with an electronic device that would measure temperature? Once it would sound off the person would be quarantined. This is the only way. As I pointed out two months ago there should have been a full military lockdown (with only screened health personal being allowed in or out) of that slum where the medical facility was broken into, I think measures like this need to be taken, otherwise it will continue to spread.

the_monkey

FullblownRose wrote: »

I think so. As I understand it, you can be contagious even before you show symptoms.

Then we're ****ed

FullblownRose

the_monkey wrote: »

Then we're ****ed

It's still hard to catch, though.

0byme75341jo28

the_monkey wrote: »

Some doctor on the guardian was saying that an outbreak in Europe could be controlled - but not in Africa / India --- why does he think it would be so "easy" to contain in Europe ?

AFAIK it's relatively difficult to actually transmit the disease, only really possible through direct contact with bodily fluids of an infected person. If you can stop people travelling from infected regions to other regions without good reason/without being infected (or showing symptoms) then I'd imagine this would greatly reduce the chances of the disease spreading, and it would be much easier to do this in Europe then it would be in poorer areas such as India and Africa. Don't forget that our healthcare and other infrastructure is far more advanced here than in a third world country. We're not going to be reusing needles or anything in hospitals, and we have other health and safety regulations to follow, so that will obviously help reduce the spread of the disease.

nyarlothothep

Do you have a link to it being infectious without symptoms? From the Guardian article the main worry isn't that it would become airborne (although that would be a doom scenario) but that it would have a longer/more effective incubation period, where it could also be spread asymptomatically. That's more likely, airborne transmission is fairly low risk as a mutation. A more positive outcome in an otherwise bleak situation is that it may become less deadly if it mutates to survive in its host.

the_monkey

That lad in Texas, did he get it in Liberia ?

And I dunno about difficult transmission, a sneeze could spread this disease ...

littlemac1980

FullblownRose wrote: »

The usual, Europeans have better infrastructure like hospitals, and the lack of funereal practices like family members washing or embalming their ebola infected dead. Basically, it means Europe is cleaner due to more sophisticated medical facilities and so on, so Ebola can't spread so fast. We're not living in such close quarters in europe, compared to parts of africa and india where it is more overpopulated.

I'm not convinced - It's a bit like the credit crunch/property crash - all the mainstream experts says it'll never happen on a massive scale - and everyone believes them... until it actually does. It's over-confidence in safeguards that have never really been tested.

I'd say I Ireland for instance - with its first-world access to medicine and facilities could handle a few cases of Ebola safely and effectively. 5 for instance - or 20 - perhaps 50 - 100. Provided the first couple cases were immediately identified and an situation like what happened in Dallas doesn't occur - If there was an infected person walking around Dublin city for 3-4 days while contagious, I'd say the game in up at that stage in terms of containment - then its a case of wait in doors until its dealt with or runs its course.

But how many active simultaneous cases of Ebola would represent critical mass in terms of what Ireland could effectively control? That's a question think is being willfully ignored in relation to all first-world countries. It's all well and good to say we can isolate a single case or two an prevent infection. But what about 300 cases - or 800 cases. Can't see how Ireland could possible cope with that number and at the same time ensure no further contamination.

Another issue is refugees/illegal immigrants, If the outbreak in West Africa continues to expand and it reaches Morocco/Algeria etc. then there will be people (who have always being illegally entering Meditteranean Europe undetected) entering from areas exposed to the Virus.

FullblownRose

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Do you have a link to it being infectious without symptoms? From the Guardian article the main worry isn't that it would become airborne (although that would be a doom scenario) but that it would have a longer/more effective incubation period, where it could also be spread asymptomatically. That's more likely, airborne transmission is fairly low risk as a mutation. A more positive outcome in an otherwise bleak situation is that it may become less deadly if it mutates to survive in its host.

If you mean r.e incubation period, here is something- I am no expert and I had read all along that it's NOT contagious before symptoms appear, but this contradicts that. I can't remember where else I read the same information, and apologise if this isn't reliable:
P.S just read a story online about the american patient's family, still under quarantine and have not been visited by the CDC people for a while, and some of them have flu symptoms so they're worried
..but the Mail article (I don't normally read that paper..not the most reliable source).. states that it's NOT contagious during incubation..I am now confused!


''Even if a person exhibits no signs or symptoms of Ebola, he or she can still spread the virus during the incubation period. Once symptoms begin, the person can remain contagious for about three more weeks.''...

http://ebola.emedtv.com/ebola/ebola-incubation-period.html

nyarlothothep

FullblownRose wrote: »

If you mean r.e incubation period, here is something- I am no expert and I had read all along that it's NOT contagious before symptoms appear, but this contradicts that. I can't remember where else I read the same information, and apologise if this isn't reliable:
P.S just read a story online about the american patient's family, still under quarantine and have not been visited by the CDC people for a while, and some of them have flu symptoms so they're worried
..but the Mail article (I don't normally read that paper..not the most reliable source).. states that it's NOT contagious during incubation..I am now confused!


''Even if a person exhibits no signs or symptoms of Ebola, he or she can still spread the virus during the incubation period. Once symptoms begin, the person can remain contagious for about three more weeks.''...

http://ebola.emedtv.com/ebola/ebola-incubation-period.html

Could be through blood transfusions/sexual transmission. Yeah that Dallas dude apparently lied about being in contact with an Ebola victim, not sure if that's the authorities making it up to cover their hides but if it's true then it's ridiculous. He should be banned from travelling for life. There must be travel restrictions in place immediately, no one from these countries save military/health professionals should be allowed to cross the borders into other countries. There should be severe international pressure to enforce strict border controls in Mediterranean/neighbouring countries.

FullblownRose

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Could be through blood transfusions/sexual transmission. Yeah that Dallas dude apparently lied about being in contact with an Ebola victim, not sure if that's the authorities making it up to cover their hides but if it's true then it's ridiculous. He should be banned from travelling for life. There must be travel restrictions in place immediately, no one from these countries save military/health professionals should be allowed to cross the borders into other countries. There should be severe international pressure to enforce strict border controls in Mediterranean/neighbouring countries.

I also read that the hospital were told twice that he's just returned from Liberia...

littlemac1980

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Could be through blood transfusions/sexual transmission. Yeah that Dallas dude apparently lied about being in contact with an Ebola victim, not sure if that's the authorities making it up to cover their hides but if it's true then it's ridiculous. He should be banned from travelling for life. There must be travel restrictions in place immediately, no one from these countries save military/health professionals should be allowed to cross the borders into other countries. There should be severe international pressure to enforce strict border controls in Mediterranean/neighbouring countries.

Of course you have to also understand his own point-of-view. For sure it was selfless and utterly reckless if he in fact did lie in relation to his contact with an Ebola Victim - I'm speaking about the allegation that he failed to declare such when he was leaving Africa - I don't know if other alleged lies in the US have surfaced.

However, if I was in Africa, and there was a chance I was exposed to a contagious person, and I had the opportunity to go to the US, before anyone found out about my contact. I'd find it hard to imagine in that situation I wouldn't go to the States. The alternative of hoping to receive good treatment in Liberia would be a very stark alternative - particularly when the US had already at that stage published news of the US Doctors they had previously 'cured'.

FullblownRose

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Of course you have to also understand his own point-of-view. For sure it was selfless and utterly reckless if he in fact did lie in relation to his contact with an Ebola Victim - I'm speaking about the allegation that he failed to declare such when he was leaving Africa - I don't know if other alleged lies in the US have surfaced.

However, if I was in Africa, and there was a chance I was exposed to a contagious person, and I had the opportunity to go to the US, before anyone found out about my contact. I'd find it hard to imagine in that situation I wouldn't go to the States. The alternative of hoping to receive good treatment in Liberia would be a very stark alternative - particularly when the US had already at that stage published news of the US Doctors they had previously 'cured'.

Anyne could panic and even delude themself that they might have escaped it, and that the best thing is to head home and hope for the best. It would have been very frightening!

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

There seems to be a certain sense of over-confidence that it can be contained in Western countries.

I hope they are right, it's more likely we can contain it in Europe/US but we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves either as this breeds complacence. It's a complete humanitarian disaster, it's almost being 'let' spread, why is this?

The ordinary European citizen can be complacent but that's just because we know there are people employed to deal with these things. We've been at their mercy in the past, we have good, tried and tested systems in place. Outside of that you can't really go to war with a virus, they're a natural part of nature, there's only so much you can do.

Why not hit it hard in the infection soup bowls, Liberia etc with a sustained international effort.

It's going to cost less now than it will when it becomes a full blown global pandemic if this paltry response continues. I mean it would have cost less a few months ago than it is costing now to send 3000 troops over and to enact further measures, if there was some sustained response. There should also be some form of tracking/restrictions on air travel to these countries.

so basically invade infected countries, intern the population until they get better? Cripple their economies with trade and travel restrictions just to combat something we can deal with relatively straightforward back at home?

nyarlothothep

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Of course you have to also understand his own point-of-view. For sure it was selfless and utterly reckless if he in fact did lie in relation to his contact with an Ebola Victim - I'm speaking about the allegation that he failed to declare such when he was leaving Africa - I don't know if other alleged lies in the US have surfaced.

However, if I was in Africa, and there was a chance I was exposed to a contagious person, and I had the opportunity to go to the US, before anyone found out about my contact. I'd find it hard to imagine in that situation I wouldn't go to the States. The alternative of hoping to receive good treatment in Liberia would be a very stark alternative - particularly when the US had already at that stage published news of the US Doctors they had previously 'cured'.

I think the main issue is that he actually lied on a form about having contact with an Ebola victim. That was stupid, if he lied we can assume that he was aware of the dangerous nature of the virus. Since he was in the US it would have been in his interests to state this, he could have received treatment immediately when symptoms did appear. Not only that he wouldn't have to live with the knowledge that he may have spread it to others. He shouldn't have been in Liberia in the first place which is why ordinary citizens should be banned from going there.

littlemac1980

Here's a report of a statement from the Liberian President effectively saying that the WHO's and the CDC's estimates and projections are non-sense and that the Liberian outbreak is stabilising:

http://www.france24.com/en/20141001-exclusive-liberia-president-sirleaf-rejects-new-ebola-cases-predictions-wrong/?&_suid=141259583884006551318236161023

PucaMama

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Here's a report of a statement from the Liberian President effectively saying that the WHO's and the CDC's estimates and projections are non-sense and that the Liberian outbreak is stabilising:

http://www.france24.com/en/20141001-exclusive-liberia-president-sirleaf-rejects-new-ebola-cases-predictions-wrong/?&_suid=141259583884006551318236161023

Think I'd trust the who and the cdc more.

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

The ordinary European citizen can be complacent but that's just because we know there are people employed to deal with these things. We've been at their mercy in the past, we have good, tried and tested systems in place. Outside of that you can't really go to war with a virus, they're a natural part of nature, there's only so much you can do.



so basically invade infected countries, intern the population until they get better? Cripple their economies with trade and travel restrictions just to combat something we can deal with relatively straightforward back at home?

Well investment could have been put into these countries in the first place, as with rebuilding Germany after the war etc. Yes. Their citizens are potential carriers, they cannot be allowed to spread the disease to major population hubs or there will be a massive increase in deaths and further damage to the global economy. If they can't handle the situation themselves then yes, other countries need to step in. I believe this should have happened with Fukushima, Tepco are incompetent, the Japanese government are in cahoots with them, the situation was handled and is still being handled incompetently. Therefore an international alliance should have stepped in and sorted it out for them in the first place since they couldn't handle it themselves.

FullblownRose

This gives the lie to the claim that it's all under control, or will be if it goes beynd the one patient in the u.s:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-nurses-unprepared-handle-ebola-patients-142210253.html#yhIrKkB

WakeUp

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Here's a report of a statement from the Liberian President effectively saying that the WHO's and the CDC's estimates and projections are non-sense and that the Liberian outbreak is stabilising:

http://www.france24.com/en/20141001-exclusive-liberia-president-sirleaf-rejects-new-ebola-cases-predictions-wrong/?&_suid=141259583884006551318236161023

and I wonder where the presidents "projections" are coming from. she says she is waiting on the next one. is she serious. the health infrastructure in these countries if it can even be called that have all but collapsed. the people that are relied upon on the ground for "projections" or factual accurate reporting are epidemiologists among others and the Liberians dont have many of them available. both the who and cdc to some extent have got some of their information lets say less than accurate but if its a choice between what they say or the Liberian health ministry Ill take the former over the latter I think. nobody knows the true the number of people infected they arent enough people on the ground with the expertise and ability for anyone to know this. especially the Liberians themselves. numbers dont lie and the numbers we are aware of show us that it actually isnt stabilising far from it not yet it isnt. this can be brought under control. but it isnt under control yet.