Ebola virus outbreak

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

Countries don't have the right or desire to invade other countries on the grounds they think their not handling their national emergencies correctly.

It would be like if an international military invaded Ireland when we had that cryptosporidium outbreak. The local government are dealing with it but these things are going to take time, you won't get instantaneous results, nobody will even with all the money in the world.

The bottom line is this outbreak isn't a new thing, they happen all the time all over the world and the medias expectation of instant results like in the movies is completely unrealistic.

Rightwing

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

Small problem. Who exactly would be willing to step in ?

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

Countries don't have the right or desire to invade other countries on the grounds they think their not handling their national emergencies correctly.

It would be like if an international military invaded Ireland when we had that cryptosporidium outbreak. The local government are dealing with it but these things are going to take time, you won't get instantaneous results, nobody will even with all the money in the world.

The bottom line is this outbreak isn't a new thing, they happen all the time all over the world and the medias expectation of instant results like in the movies is completely unrealistic.

Yes but that isn't comparable. The two disasters I mentioned affect all of us so if a nation can't manage it's own affairs and its messing up the planet/global health for the rest of us then send in the international military. Even the Liberian government is accepting 3000 US troops on the ground because it's beyond their capabilities to resolve the crisis. This should have been done in the first place, so it's probably too little too late. I grant that these countries are poor, that it would be very difficult to get these outbreaks under control with existing infrastructure but no way should millions of people all over the world get infected because of this either. Which is why there is already international intervention and there needs to be more, much more.

ectoraige

The problem for Western countries isn't that their medical systems wouldn't be able to cope with an Ebola outbreak - they would as the neccessary steps are well understood, and will be taken, although mistakes such as what happened in Texas will of course happen in the early days. The real problem for them is that Ebola may very well become endemic in Western Africa meaning the threat of further outbreaks from infected travellers will become part of the routine. It's a threat that will have now have to be actively guarded against on a routine basis. It will take a concerted campaign to eradicate Ebola as it will require a huge medical and cultural transformation within the affected areas.

Spring Onion

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yes but that isn't comparable. The two disasters I mentioned affect all of us so if a nation can't manage it's own affairs and its messing up the planet/global health for the rest of us then send in the international military. Even the Liberian government is accepting 3000 US troops on the ground because it's beyond their capabilities to resolve the crisis. This should have been done in the first place, so it's probably too little too late. I grant that these countries are poor, that it would be very difficult to get these outbreaks under control with existing infrastructure but no way should millions of people all over the world get infected because of this either. Which is why there is already international intervention and there needs to be more, much more.

Please stop writing such dramatic and exaggerated posts. We wont even be discussing this epidemic in 3 months.

WakeUp

The country that is doing most to fight Ebola is little Cuba fair play to them. they have sent another 300 doctors and nurses to the infected places on top of the 165 health professional they had already sent over. this is the level of response required from the international community to tackle this. this is beyond the capabilities way beyond them of countries in trouble. this is outbreak is like no other and can not be compared to anything that has gone before. the international community has a window of time to halt this in its tracks but its going to take a massive effort to do so. more needs to be done and it needs to be done right now.

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The two disasters I mentioned affect all of us so if a nation can't manage it's own affairs and its messing up the planet/global health for the rest of us then send in the international military.

But it's not messing up the worlds health and the media is inventing the unlikely scenario of the virus becoming airborne to make the threat seem more menacing. The fact is at worst we would see a handful of cases making it through to the west, they'll end up getting treatment as soon as they present symptoms and any possible spread will be contained pretty quickly.

You simply won't get a major outbreak in Europe, we're not living close enough to each other and we deal with our waste and water properly so these things can't spread.

This is a really bad outbreak for poor countries, our focus should be on helping them deal with their problem rather than worrying about a slight outside chance that it will somehow have similar results in our countries. Helping them wouldn't include invading them though.

nyarlothothep

Unless it gets to India or China, the former of which is hardly renowned for its sanitation, not sure about China but I read somewhere that they had bio weapons in low security installations! So not inspiring confidence. And then it gets out of control in SE Asia/Asia and with international travel between the East and West it becomes a global pandemic with the risk of mutation going up, for better or worse. I do hope you're right though.

ScumLord

I'd be somewhat worried about India, that country is very overpopulated with terrible infrastructure in places, but both countries are improving and they won't be safe from these kind of things until they have infrastructure on a par with western countries. So even if you go in and wipe out ebola at great international expense, there will be another virus along within years and you have to start all over again. As with anything in nature when you wipe out something ten other things start battling to replace it.

All you can really do is manage these situations while humanity upgrades it's infrastructure. While it seems to be happening at a slow rate from our viewpoint, from a species point of view it's happening rapidly.

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd be somewhat worried about India, that country is very overpopulated with terrible infrastructure in places, but both countries are improving and they won't be safe from these kind of things until they have infrastructure on a par with western countries. So even if you go in and wipe out ebola at great international expense, there will be another virus along within years and you have to start all over again. As with anything in nature when you wipe out something ten other things start battling to replace it.

All you can really do is manage these situations while humanity upgrades it's infrastructure. While it seems to be happening at a slow rate from our viewpoint, from a species point of view it's happening rapidly.

True enough but Ebola is horrible with the bleeding, vomiting and diarrhoea and the 55% mortality rate is bleak, another virus might be more mundane, although who knows.

Spring Onion

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/05/ebola-america-range-big-pharma


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ebola-virus-hammers-airline-stocks-boosts-pharma-stocks/story?id=25895726


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/30/us-stocks-ebola-idUSKCN0HP2GE20140930

WakeUp

nyarlothothep wrote: »

True enough but Ebola is horrible with the bleeding, vomiting and diarrhoea and the 55% mortality rate is bleak, another virus might be more mundane, although who knows.

that mortality rate number is wrong, its been put out there by the who and cdc but it isnt accurate. you cant calculate what the mortality rate is accurately until after an outbreak. that number is basically the number of deaths so far divided by the number of cases to date. but no one knows for sure how many people are actually infected nor how many people will die before this runs its course. It will probably be closer to 85% by the time this is done.

Birroc

WakeUp wrote: »

that mortality rate number is wrong, its been put out there by the who and cdc but it isnt accurate. you cant calculate what the mortality rate is accurately until after an outbreak (Yes you can!). that number is basically the number of deaths so far divided by the number of cases to date (Wow, maths genius!). but no one knows for sure how many people are actually infected nor how many people will die before this runs its course. It will probably be closer to 85% by the time this is done.

You are making a fool of yourself!

FullblownRose

WakeUp wrote: »

that mortality rate number is wrong, its been put out there by the who and cdc but it isnt accurate. you cant calculate what the mortality rate is accurately until after an outbreak. that number is basically the number of deaths so far divided by the number of cases to date. but no one knows for sure how many people are actually infected nor how many people will die before this runs its course. It will probably be closer to 85% by the time this is done.

I read a virology blog just now, the author reckons death tolls etc are usually underestimated.

WakeUp

Birroc wrote: »

You are making a fool of yourself!

Im a fool. really. theres a difference between cfr ( case fatality rate ) and pfc. why dont you enlighten yourself
http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/estimating-fatality-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak-91014

WakeUp

Originally Posted by WakeUp View Post
that mortality rate number is wrong, its been put out there by the who and cdc but it isnt accurate. you cant calculate what the mortality rate is accurately until after an outbreak (Yes you can!). that number is basically the number of deaths so far divided by the number of cases to date (Wow, maths genius!). but no one knows for sure how many people are actually infected nor how many people will die before this runs its course. It will probably be closer to 85% by the time this is done.
_________________________________________________

Birroc wrote: »

You are making a fool of yourself!

_____________________________________________________

However, if we want to be particular, that 53% isn't really a CFR; it's actually the proportion of fatal cases - or PFC. This is a critical distinction. Because the outbreak in West Africa is still ongoing, we can't calculate end-of-outbreak CFR yet. We don’t know how many people will die from Ebola in the weeks ahead or how many total cases will ultimately accumulate by the end of the outbreak. So, for the time being, we have to make do with the PFC, which is essentially the number of deaths thus far divided by the number of cases to

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/estimating-fatality-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak-91014

_________________________________________________________________

so whos the fool now. you phuckin douchebag.

Birroc

WakeUp wrote: »

Originally Posted by WakeUp View Post
that mortality rate number is wrong, its been put out there by the who and cdc but it isnt accurate. you cant calculate what the mortality rate is accurately until after an outbreak (Yes you can!). that number is basically the number of deaths so far divided by the number of cases to date (Wow, maths genius!). but no one knows for sure how many people are actually infected nor how many people will die before this runs its course. It will probably be closer to 85% by the time this is done.
_________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________

However, if we want to be particular, that 53% isn't really a CFR; it's actually the proportion of fatal cases - or PFC. This is a critical distinction. Because the outbreak in West Africa is still ongoing, we can't calculate end-of-outbreak CFR yet. We don’t know how many people will die from Ebola in the weeks ahead or how many total cases will ultimately accumulate by the end of the outbreak. So, for the time being, we have to make do with the PFC, which is essentially the number of deaths thus far divided by the number of cases to

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/estimating-fatality-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak-91014

_________________________________________________________________

so whos the fool now. you phuckin douchebag.

You Sir, read your silly post and you will see why. 85% indeed!



Any more predictions?

WakeUp

Birroc wrote: »

You Sir! 85% indeed!



Any more predictions?

youre just making yourself look more silly though please continue if you want to. if youre going to accuse someone of being a fool you should probably, you know , know what it is you are talking about. or you just end up looking a fool.

Despite Ebola’s frightening reputation, not all Ebola fatalities happen quickly. Without a little fine-tuning, PFC doesn't account for the lag between when a case is reported and when a case dies - approximately 16 days for this outbreak [3]. What this means is that the 2296 deaths reported as of September 8th were all likely reported as cases by August 23rd. Adjusting PFC for this lag-time gives us a much better approximation of CFR well before the outbreak ends [4].

Below is a chart that shows both unadjusted and lag-adjusted PFC over time for Ebola in West Africa [5]. The lag-adjusted PFC - about 80-85% - is significantly higher than the unadjusted PFC but is consistent with recent fatality estimates by Médecins Sans Frontières [6]. This finding reiterates the magnitude of this outbreak – not only in terms of scale, but also lethality. In light of this new estimate, a stronger global effort is all the more imperative.

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/estimating-fatality-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak-91014

KERSPLAT!

WakeUp wrote: »

so whos the fool now. you phuckin douchebag.

Birroc wrote: »

You Sir, read your silly post and you will see why. 85% indeed!



Any more predictions?

MOD

Post in a civil manner or don't post.

FullblownRose

They're saying not to shake hands, and to cough into the crook of your elbow rather than onto your hand (which is proper practise anyway, drives me nuts when people cough into their hand ew)

I understand that advice is aimed at countries with an epidemic but still, does it not suggest that it's quite possible to catch ebola from droplets, in that way?

And what about public transport..? can it contaminate a seat or bench in a bus, for example? is it transmitted through sweat?

ProfessorPlum

The WHO Ebola response team have adjusted their CFR To over 70%, and are now estimating there will be in excess of 20,000 cases by Nov 2nd (published NEJM). So it seems that even the WHO now realise that previous estimates in the low 50% are wrong, and the CFR will be closer to the mid 80% CFR seen in other EVD outbreaks.
Also the idea that we won't be talking about this outbreak in 3 months is naive in the extreme. This outbreak will take significant time an effort to bring under control, and there is very real concern among the experts that it may become endemic in parts of Wedt Africa.

ceadaoin.

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

By all accounts it isnt contagious during the incubation period. However, if the initial symptoms are just a fever and general malaise, then it would be easy to just take a couple of ibuprofen or paracetamol to relieve symptoms and go about your business, all the while being contagious. I have seen some speculation that the US patient used ibuprofen to lower his fever so that he could board the flight. If he was symptomatic on his journey, that is worrying given that he transferred flights twice.

Spring Onion wrote: »

Please stop writing such dramatic and exaggerated posts. We wont even be discussing this epidemic in 3 months.

Have you read the case projections at all? 1.4 million cases by January is the CDCs own prediction. Even if it is brought under control and the rate of infection slowed, it still won't be over in 3 months.

Extrapolating trends to January 20, 2015, without additional interventions or changes in community behavior (e.g., notable reductions in unsafe burial practices), the model also estimates that Liberia and Sierra Leone will have approximately 550,000 Ebola cases (1.4 million when corrected for underreporting) (Appendix [Figure 2]). The uncorrected estimates of cases for Liberia on September 9, 2014, were 2,618, and the actual reported cases were 2,407 (i.e., model overestimated cases by +8.8%). The uncorrected estimates of cases for Sierra Leone on September 13, 2014, were 1,505 and the actual reported cases were 1,620 (i.e., model underestimated cases by -7.6%).

FullblownRose

ceadaoin. wrote: »

By all accounts it isnt contagious during the incubation period. However, if the initial symptoms are just a fever and general malaise, then it would be easy to just take a couple of ibuprofen or paracetamol to relieve symptoms and go about your business, all the while being contagious. I have seen some speculation that the US patient used ibuprofen to lower his fever so that he could board the flight. If he was symptomatic on his journey, that is worrying given that he transferred flights twice.




Have you read the case projections at all? 1.4 million cases by January is the CDCs own prediction. Even if it is brought under control and the rate of infection slowed, it still won't be over in 3 months.

That's what I thought. Is it safe to assume that website is just, wrong? I hope it is, anyway!

The other point is, at the point where you are having symptoms, if you have a fever, which you will, you mightn't be alert enough to actually realise you're in trouble.

ScumLord

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you read the case projections at all? 1.4 million cases by January is the CDCs own prediction. Even if it is brought under control and the rate of infection slowed, it still won't be over in 3 months.

Probably not, but in three months time if it hasn't turned into a global pandemic and stays mostly restricted to African countries we probably won't care anymore. It's going to be added to the many ongoing medical catastrophes that's going on in Africa right now.

littlemac1980

Journal.ie just reported that a Spanish nurse in Spain has tested positive.

ceadaoin.

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Journal.ie just reported that a Spanish nurse in Spain has tested positive.

She had treated the Spanish priest who was brought back and who died a couple of weeks ago. You have to wonder how the infection happened. They were fully aware that the patient had ebola so surely the strictest protocols would have been followed from the moment he arrived in the hospital.

A Spanish nurse who treated an Ebola victim in Madrid is suspected of being the first person to have contracted the virus outside Africa, Spanish media say.

The nurse tested positive for Ebola in initial tests and doctors are awaiting final results, according to reports.

She was a member of the team that treated Spanish priest Manuel Garcia Viejo, who died of Ebola on 25 September.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29514920

snubbleste

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Journal.ie just reported that a Spanish nurse in Spain has tested positive.

Panic stations! Get your iodine tablets ready!

ProfessorPlum

ScumLord wrote: »

Probably not, but in three months time if it hasn't turned into a global pandemic and stays mostly restricted to African countries we probably won't care anymore. It's going to be added to the many ongoing medical catastrophes that's going on in Africa right now.

Emm, I'm not so sure. If it does become endemic in West Africa, the best case senario is that sporadic cases will crop up in Europe and the US and given the infectious nature of he disease and the high death rates associated with it, I think we in the west will continue to care, not about the effects the disease is having in poor third world countries, but the potential it has to infect us in rich western countries. Every time a new case is imported, we'll be talking about it. I think 3 months is a ridiculously short time line even to get to that stage though. In all likelihood, in 3 months we'll still be looking an an expanding epidemic that is a continuing cause of concern.

Augmerson

Seriously hope Ebola never sets foot here, our hospitals would be under immense pressure if there was an outbreak.

SPanish pres conference here, if anyone can speak spanish:


http://www.atresplayer.com/directos/television/directo-6/