Ebola virus outbreak

ceadaoin.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The nurse must have got infected due to complacency/a mistake. However out of all the cases that have been brought back, this has been the only one where an infection has occurred. If anything it's beneficial to bring people back and treat them as we can study the virus in greater detail but the stringency of the procedures must be enforced with total fascism/pedantry basically, there can be no room for error whatsoever. (I am not advocating for fascism incidentally, just incredibly strict/OCD observance of containment/disinfectant procedures). The solution is through scientific research. I agree though that generally no one should be allowed in or out of these countries. I'm still baffled that the Obama administration is 'considering' stricter screening at airports for people coming from these infected zones, I mean wtf?! considering? Stricter screening? Seriously?! As I said it's almost like it's being given every opportunity to spread, which is strange in itself, can a storm really be that perfect? It's starting to resemble a 12 Monkeys scenario with the plane flight, I really want to be wrong on this.

Here is a Spanish article where the hospital staff were complaining that the protection they were given was not up to the level required for ebola. The infection might not have been caused by the nurse making an error. They were not wearing suits which protect against level 4 agents.

http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/06/actualidad/1412618449_833358.html

Also, a pic of the 'isolation area' where the ebola patients were looked after. Hmm...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzSQRPKIQAADFcg.jpg

This whole thing was a colossal **** up from the moment they decided to bring ebola patients back to a system that was woefully unsuitable.

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Scientifically, bringing infected people home is fraught with risk. Often the infected person is a dedicated aid worker who is helping the poor people in Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc, and every help should be afforded to such worthy people. I am not sure that it's wise, to be bringing people back, but perhaps trying to treat them in the field might be wiser and more effective. Spain has shown the system can fail... And the more cases that occur, then the whole system collapses. One of the reasons why the disease is spreading in Africa, is because the health system has collapsed, and there is nowhere to treat the sick. Such a scenario is a possibility in Europe. The West had done nothing up to now.....to combat a real threat.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I certainly think it would be reasonable to start thinking about travel restrictions to and from the West African regions affected by the outbreak.

I also think a request to the countries affected for temporary disaster response control would be reasonable - i.e. the WHO gets administrative control over their health system temporarily and gets to dictate the procedures and processes in place and foreign troops are allowed to come in and assist with any curfew management, etc that is required.

I realise that such measures will impinge upon the economy and sovereignty of the nations concerned but there are two main points here:

- current efforts at containment and mitigation are failing;
- the worst case scenario, however remote it may be from occurring, is incredibly grim given the severity and mortality rate of the virus;

ScumLord has some good posts in this thread and I think we're a ways yet from cracking each other's skulls open to feast on the goo inside but more needs to be done. If for no better reason than people are dying horrible deaths in Africa at the moment and it could be prevented with better management and processes.

The mortality rate currently is about 55%, lower than the usual 90% or so with previous epidemics. That perhaps is at least, optimistic.

Fallschirmjager

http://rt.com/news/193820-ebola-spain-hospitalized-nurse/

Okay I know this was posted before, but not the latest info, it just amped up a notch.

They now have 4 inc the nurse and a further 22 cases under watch.

What makes me a little worried, this is a westernised hospital and this is the growth rate. Makes you wonder what we are not hearing from the African countries where I am guessing it would be more difficult to track.

FullblownRose

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

http://rt.com/news/193820-ebola-spain-hospitalized-nurse/

Okay I know this was posted before, but not the latest info, it just amped up a notch.

They now have 4 inc the nurse and a further 22 cases under watch.

What makes me a little worried, this is a westernised hospital and this is the growth rate. Makes you wonder what we are not hearing from the African countries where I am guessing it would be more difficult to track.

I'm assuming those are suspected of having contracted ebola, are showing some possible symptoms unlike the other 22 under watch?

If they are confirmed cases, they didn't catch it from the nurse in the ways we're told it can be caught- i.e, vomit, etc.
She was not even exhbiting symptoms such as vomiting when they were in contact with her, and apart from her husband, how would any of them have been in contact with her bodily fluids? :O

tigger123

Just curious, why are people linking RT articles so much in this thread? Do they have Ebola exclusives?

Fallschirmjager

FullblownRose wrote: »

I'm assuming those are suspected of having contracted ebola, are showing some possible symptoms unlike the other 22 under watch?

If they are confirmed cases, they didn't catch it from the nurse in the ways we're told it can be caught- i.e, vomit, etc.
She was not even exhbiting symptoms such as vomiting when they were in contact with her, and apart from her husband, how would any of them have been in contact with her bodily fluids? :O

Now that my fellow boardsie is a darn good question.

What's really concerning to me, is the flippant way they are flying people all over the world. That is asking for trouble. Seems the people behind the Georgia stones will get their wish after all....

Mr.Micro

FullblownRose wrote: »

I'm assuming those are suspected of having contracted ebola, are showing some possible symptoms unlike the other 22 under watch?

If they are confirmed cases, they didn't catch it from the nurse in the ways we're told it can be caught- i.e, vomit, etc.
She was not even exhbiting symptoms such as vomiting when they were in contact with her, and apart from her husband, how would any of them have been in contact with her bodily fluids? :O

Body fluids include saliva, mucus, sweat etc apart from blood, urine, faeces etc. it's quite easy to contaminate things, that other people touch. It all depends on how long the contaminated item stays viable as a transmitting vehicle.

nyarlothothep

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I certainly think it would be reasonable to start thinking about travel restrictions to and from the West African regions affected by the outbreak.

I also think a request to the countries affected for temporary disaster response control would be reasonable - i.e. the WHO gets administrative control over their health system temporarily and gets to dictate the procedures and processes in place and foreign troops are allowed to come in and assist with any curfew management, etc that is required.

I realise that such measures will impinge upon the economy and sovereignty of the nations concerned but there are two main points here:

- current efforts at containment and mitigation are failing;
- the worst case scenario, however remote it may be from occurring, is incredibly grim given the severity and mortality rate of the virus;

ScumLord has some good posts in this thread and I think we're a ways yet from cracking each other's skulls open to feast on the goo inside but more needs to be done. If for no better reason than people are dying horrible deaths in Africa at the moment and it could be prevented with better management and processes.

That would be the most obvious first step. For example, Liberia is rife with the virus, so regardless of the costs to Western economies, banning travel to the country would be a good first step. But this isn't happening which almost makes me wonder is there a conspiracy at the highest levels of power to spread this all over the place? Less people=less consumption of resources, it's a horrible thought but I wouldn't be surprised if our 'great' and 'noble' world leaders and captains of industry had this in mind.

littlemac1980

From the RT report :

"According to The Guardian, staff at the hospital said waste from the rooms of both patients had been carried out in the same elevator used by all personnel. The hospital was also reportedly not evacuated when the second patient, García Viejo, was taken in to receive treatment."

I would have thought the requirement to evacuate an entire hospital for the treatment of one patient - though probably an effective and good safeguard - is an utterly unrealistic and impractical method of dealing with the issue.

If this is what's considered the appropriate procedure in a First-World nation to contain Ebola when treating a carrier, then well we are all goosed. Those aid workers should never have been brought home.

I can't imagine in Ireland we have any equipment or means of properly quarantining a suspected Ebola patient. Does anyone have any idea if we could?

What will the Irish Government do, when inevitably some poor Irish aid worker contracts the Virus? Ryanair?

Mr.Micro

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Now that my fellow boardsie is a darn good question.

What's really concerning to me, is the flippant way they are flying people all over the world. That is asking for trouble. Seems the people behind the Georgia stones will get their wish after all....

Money comes first, and science down the list.

FullblownRose

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Body fluids include saliva, mucus, sweat etc apart from blood, urine, faeces etc. it's quite easy to contaminate things, that other people touch. It all depends on how long the contaminated item stays viable as a transmitting vehicle.

Yes, hmm, slightly worrying..! I am sure I've seen a doctor say it can't be caught even from being directly sneezed on

Not that worry does any good, of course

ceadaoin.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Body fluids include saliva, mucus, sweat etc apart from blood, urine, faeces etc. it's quite easy to contaminate things, that other people touch. It all depends on how long the contaminated item stays viable as a transmitting vehicle.

One study has shown that the virus can survive on surfaces for up to 3 weeks and in aerosol droplets for up to 1.5 hours. I think recent events are showing that it's not as difficult to get infected as they are saying.

Conclusions:  Our study has shown that Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV) and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) can survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks. The decay rates of ZEBOV and Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) plus MARV within a dynamic aerosol were calculated. ZEBOV and MARV had similar decay rates, whilst REBOV showed significantly better survival within an aerosol.

Full study here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04778.x/full

Mr.Micro

FullblownRose wrote: »

Yes, hmm, slightly worrying..! I am sure I've seen a doctor say it can't be caught even from being directly sneezed on

Not that worry does any good, of course

It's quite a delicate virus and easily destroyed with hot water, soap and disinfectant. So people would really have to be up close or contaminated by an infected person. So there is no need to worry.

Egginacup

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Sometimes you have look at world leaders and think 'Are they all really this thick?'. I mean what is to be gained flying people back home around the globe to countries that haven't been touched by ebola yet? I know I sound selfish but by doing so they are putting many more lives at risk. Can a quarantine area in some remote part of the world be set up by the WHO to treat people properly with proper resources that are needed. A united global effort if you like.

They want to scare you sh!tless again. The orange terror alerts aren't having the effect they used to have.

ScumLord

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

What's really concerning to me, is the flippant way they are flying people all over the world. That is asking for trouble.

What makes you think they're being flippant about it. The pictures in this thread show people in hazmat suits and the patient in a sealed chamber. It's not like their giving the people economy class tickets home and telling them to meet up at the hospital in a few days when their ready.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

One study has shown that the virus can survive on surfaces for up to 3 weeks and in aerosol droplets for up to 1.5 hours. I think recent events are showing that it's not as difficult to get infected as they are saying.

I didn't go through that link in full but I don't see them saying it will survive for up to 3 weeks. I've read somewhere else that they can get it to survive for up to 6 days under lab conditions. Basically they were ideal settings for the virus to survive and not necessarily anything that the virus would find in the real world.

The fact it can live in certain liquids is also something that western societies have already combatted. In western countries we have drainage to prevent standing water from becoming contaminated.

It's not just down to medicine, we combat these diseases with our sewage and water infrastructure. We don't leave waste lying around the place, we don't have people throwing their toilet water into the streets, we don't have entire families living in one room, we wash more often, our kitchens are cleaner. It's just very difficult for the virus to find any other way of spreading outside of direct human contact.

Medical treatment isn't even the half of what we've done to protect ourselves.

littlemac1980

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't go through that link in full but I don't see them saying it will survive for up to 3 weeks. I've read somewhere else that they can get it to survive for up to 6 days under lab conditions. Basically they were ideal settings for the virus to survive and not necessarily anything that the virus would find in the real world.

Maybe it's this you are referring to ScumLord - we had a "discussion" about this a couple days ago. Here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92463186

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

Basically it says that the Virus has been shown to survive upto 50 days in Laboratory conditions.

In darkness, i.e. Night-time with no UV from the Sun, the Virus appears capable of surviving for several hours provided the temperature is between 20 - 250C ad 30% - 40% humidity (ambient conditions).

See this section:

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces, particularly at low temperatures (4°C). One study could not recover any Ebolavirus from experimentally contaminated surfaces (plastic, metal or glass) at room temperature. In another study, Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions (between 20 and 250C and 30–40% relative humidity) (amount of virus reduced to 37% after 15.4 hours), but is less stable than some other viral hemorrhagic fevers (Lassa). When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days. This information is based on experimental findings only and not based on observations in nature. This information is intended to be used to support local risk assessments in a laboratory setting.

A study on transmission of ebolavirus from fomites in an isolation ward concludes that the risk of transmission is low when recommended infection control guidelines for viral hemorrhagic fevers are followed. Infection control protocols included decontamination of floors with 0.5% bleach daily and decontamination of visibly contaminated surfaces with 0.05% bleach as necessary."

ceadaoin.

ScumLord wrote: »

What makes you think they're being flippant about it. The pictures in this thread show people in hazmat suits and the patient in a sealed chamber. It's not like their giving the people economy class tickets home and telling them to meet up at the hospital in a few days when their ready.

I didn't go through that link in full but I don't see them saying it will survive for up to 3 weeks. I've read somewhere else that they can get it to survive for up to 6 days under lab conditions. Basically they were ideal settings for the virus to survive and not necessarily anything that the virus would find in the real world.

The fact it can live in certain liquids is also something that western societies have already combatted. In western countries we have drainage to prevent standing water from becoming contaminated.

It's not just down to medicine, we combat these diseases with our sewage and water infrastructure. We don't leave waste lying around the place, we don't have people throwing their toilet water into the streets, we don't have entire families living in one room, we wash more often, our kitchens are cleaner. It's just very difficult for the virus to find any other way of spreading outside of direct human contact.

Medical treatment isn't even the half of what we've done to protect ourselves.

They found:

The survival of MARV and ZEBOV on plastic and glass substrates was assessed when stored at +4°C, over 50 days (Fig. 3). No significant differences in the initial recovery of either virus across the two substrates and liquid media were detected (P > 0·05, two-way anova). At day 26, there were only three samples from which virus could be recovered; ZEBOV in tissue culture media on glass and MARV in tissue culture media on both glass and plastic. At day 50, the only sample from which virus could be recovered was that of ZEBOV from tissue culture media dried onto glass.

And

The stability of MARV, ZEBOV and REBOV was assessed over 90 min using a 40-l Goldberg drum. For each virus, three replicates were carried out for each time point using BA as an internal control. The average decay rate of BA spores during the filovirus runs was 1·42% min−1. This value represents the physical decay rate in the system used. Statistical analysis performed on the BA data showed no significant difference in decay rates (P > 0·05, ancova) between runs for different viruses (Fig. 4b), ensuring that any difference in decay rates of the filoviruses can be attributed to differences between the aerosol characteristics of the different virus species. All three filoviruses under investigation could be detected after 90 min in a dynamic aerosol (Fig. 4a). ZEBOV and MARV had similar decay rates and REBOV appeared to decay at a slower rate

It's worrying that it can survive in aerosols for up to 90 mins. Flushing a toilet with infected vomit or diarrhea would create aerosols so anyone using the bathroom after would be at risk. Other studies have shown that the aerosol transmission route isn't very common but I'd rather have all the facts to protect myself if ebola infections did occur in my locality.

I just think the whole 'it's nearly impossible to become infected' line they are using is crap. Loads of people already don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Why would they change their habits in the event of an outbreak if they aren't aware how can spread? Plenty of people seem to think that the transmission method is similar to HIV because that is now the media is making it seem. Not true at all.

Hitchens

it has already mutated from 'eebola' to 'ebbola' on RTE News at One :pac:

littlemac1980

Here's a really good BBC report of what its like in Sierra Leone right now:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29507673

realweirdo

The tactic of bringing infected westerners back to their home country to be treated seems on balance insane. Ebola is highly contagious and it takes just one breakdown in an infection control process for it to escape from a hospital and spread to a general population. Once that happens, the best medical resources in the world won't stop it. It might spread much slower in the west but it will spread.

ScumLord

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I just think the whole 'it's nearly impossible to become infected' line they are using is crap. Loads of people already don't wash their hands after using the toilet. Why would they change their habits in the event of an outbreak if they aren't aware how can spread? Plenty of people seem to think that the transmission method is similar to HIV because that is now the media is making it seem. Not true at all.

No but you're at the other extreme promoting worst case and extreme scenarios. Just because it's possible for this virus to survive for a long time under controlled lab conditions doesn't mean it can survive for anything close to those times in the variable conditions of the real world.

Your also highlighting what would be seen as poor hygiene locally as a method of transfer for a disease that is thousands of miles away from ireland. Whereas it's next to nonexistent hygiene that allows it to spread in Africa.

The fact this disease is running rampant in African countries does not mean it will be able to do the same thing in Ireland. They're two very different environments.

If ebola can make it too this country we can begin to panic, but we've already combated disease here on a national level and we won. In many ways Ireland's small population makes it much easier for us to combat these things.

ScumLord

realweirdo wrote: »

Ebola is highly contagious

It's not.

Egginacup

A little persepective folks:


ebola data.jpg

realweirdo

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not.

It is. It is often spread before people know they are even infected. It is also spread through contact with deceased victims. It is spread in lots of different ways. By any stretch, it is highly contagious. They are now talking about potentially 1 million victims in West Africa.

AlanS181824

4 reported victims in Spain... Yikes, must be spreading.

realweirdo

Egginacup wrote: »

A little persepective folks:


ebola data.jpg

Lies, statistics and all that.

HIV/AIDS has been around for decades and been spreading slowly. It has had much longer to spread than Ebola which on the otherhand is spreading rapidly.

The ultimate problem with Ebola is you reach a crunch point where the numbers are so many that its no longer possible to treat people. 5000 cases, that's relatively easy to treat. But when it reaches 50,000 cases, what then? How exactly do you stop it spreading then? You can't really. It becomes impossible.

You understand the seriousness of it now? You probably don't.

littlemac1980

realweirdo wrote: »

Lies, statistics and all that.

HIV/AIDS has been around for decades and been spreading slowly. It has had much longer to spread than Ebola which on the otherhand is spreading rapidly.

The ultimate problem with Ebola is you reach a crunch point where the numbers are so many that its no longer possible to treat people. 5000 cases, that's relatively easy to treat. But when it reaches 50,000 cases, what then? How exactly do you stop it spreading then? You can't really. It becomes impossible.

You understand the seriousness of it now? You probably don't.

Look likes 2 cases was 1 too many for Spain to properly deal with.

realweirdo

ScumLord wrote: »

If ebola can make it too this country we can begin to panic, but we've already combated disease here on a national level and we won. In many ways Ireland's small population makes it much easier for us to combat these things.

This is just laughable. The west african countries have similar populations to Ireland but far less movement around. We have highly developed infrastructure. You can travel anywhere in 3 hours and so can Ebola. Not to mention flights all over Europe. In addition to connections to west africa.

In my view its only a matter of time before its in Ireland. We can either hope it doesn't get here, or we can start seriously preparing which includes training hospital workers and setting up isolated units now.

wildefalcon

realweirdo wrote: »

It is. It is often spread before people know they are even infected. It is also spread through contact with deceased victims. It is spread in lots of different ways. By any stretch, it is highly contagious. They are now talking about potentially 1 million victims in West Africa.

It's not highly contagious - yet.


It is only contactable by fluid contact. Washing the dead is a big part of West African funeral ritual, inadvertently spreading the disease to close family, so lots of people have it in West Africa.

A sense of perspective is advisable (I know - asking a lot in AH!). This disease has killed less people than the 'flu. It's a horrible disease, and there's no cure, but it's not a major killer, yet.

What scares me is that it could combine with the 'flu and become infectious by airborne particles.

That's brown trousers time!

TheBunk1

DarkJager wrote: »

It has a 90% mortality rate, no cure, and is getting a higher chance of mutating in to an airborne virus with the more people it infects. It is extremely dangerous.

It's important to distinguish that Ebola virus can have a mortality rate of up to 90% and not that it is 90%. The 90% figure is based on one outbreak involving around 20 people, where 90% died. The overall mortality averages out around 50%, which is still very high for any infectious disease.

The chances of Ebola mutating to become airborne are extremely unlikely. There is no known virus that has ever changed its mode of transmission and viruses have been mutating and evolving for millions of years.