Ebola virus outbreak

smash

Peist2007 wrote: »

Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?

Iodine tablets! :rolleyes:

MadYaker wrote: »

A bigger threat to humanity? Climate Change, loss of biodiversity, diminishing availability of fresh water causing wars, asteroid impact. All these are more of a threat to humanity than ebola.

You're talking about events which would take decades. Ebola would take weeks.

Akrasia wrote: »

And if it turns into a computer virus it could infect the entire internet in a matter of hours!!

Never go full retard!

jamesbere

Akrasia wrote: »

And if it turns into a computer virus it could infect the entire internet in a matter of hours!!

hmmmmmmmmmm, so this is how skynet starts.

MadYaker

smash wrote: »

You're talking about events which would take decades. Ebola would take weeks.

If it could spread rapidly in first world countries, which it can't. Even Nigeria managed to contain it.

Doctor Jimbob

MadYaker wrote: »

If it could spread rapidly in first world countries, which it can't. Even Nigeria managed to contain it.

Don't be letting common sense get in the way of the DOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

FortuneChip

jamesbere wrote: »

hmmmmmmmmmm, so this is how skynet starts.

Skynet already started, it just hasn't happened yet.

littlemac1980

Thomas Duncan began being symptomatic on 24.09.2014 and died on 08.10.2014.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/timeline-case-ebola-diagnosed-us-26048786

Therefore allowing for the max incubation period of 21 days and allowing 2-3 days to permit detection among a newly infected person, the approximate date we can be close to 100% sure that there will be no other US infections which are directly connected to Mr. Duncan will be around about 1st or 2nd of November. (I'm assuming that his body was properly contained as of 09.10.2014).

It's going to be a long three weeks for the medical staff at the hospital that treated him, and an important 3 weeks for those around the world nervously awaiting updates.

Colibri

smash wrote: »

It's true. If it goes airborne then we're pretty fcuked.

"Most mutations are bad for viruses, very rarely does it benefit the virus. While Ebola is a negative strand RNA virus and therefore likely to make mistakes (have mutations). The chance that the mutation for this Ebola strain to become airborne is very small."

- Aileen Marty on an IAMA on reddit a week ago (she's a doctor & infectious diseases specialist who treated Ebola patients with the WHO and CDC in West Africa).

Spring Onion

Peist2007 wrote: »

Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?

I am comparing mortality rate of West Africa v Western Europe. West Africa will always have a higher mortality rate for various reasons.

Spring Onion

Colibri wrote: »

"Most mutations are bad for viruses, very rarely does it benefit the virus. While Ebola is a negative strand RNA virus and therefore likely to make mistakes (have mutations). The chance that the mutation for this Ebola strain to become airborne is very small."

- Aileen Marty on an IAMA on reddit a week ago (she's a doctor & infectious diseases specialist who treated Ebola patients with the WHO and CDC in West Africa).

It's not very small, its unprecedented for any virus and thus impossible.

Spring Onion

smash wrote: »

Ebola would take weeks.

Weeks to wipe out humanity?

It was first discovered in 1976.

smash

MadYaker wrote: »

If it could spread rapidly in first world countries, which it can't. Even Nigeria managed to contain it.

Spring Onion wrote: »

Weeks to wipe out humanity?

It was first discovered in 1976.

Like I said, if it became airborne.

Spring Onion

smash wrote: »

Like I said, if it became airborne.

It wont. See my previous posts on this. I cant be bothered repeating myself.
It has as much of a chance of turning into a bird - Possible maybe but unprecedented and highly unlikely.

littlemac1980

Spring Onion wrote: »

It's not very small, its unprecedented for any virus and thus impossible.

I agree from what little knowledge I have that the Virus will not become airborne - that's the clear general consensus among the myriad of sources available.

In any event, worrying about whether or not the virus will or won't ever be airborne is of no use to anyone, when what we are dealing with here is a virus that is not airborne, but is nevertheless, deadly and spreading quickly.

No offence - I don't want to appear pedantic (though I'd say I will), but it's logically false to suggest that because something is unprecedented (which actually means undocumented, or unobserved) that it is impossible. Throughout human history many of our major advances were brought about through developing something, or some theory that made something which was unprecedented something possible.

marco_polo

Its only a matter of time before its Neutrinos start to mutate :eek:

GunnerBlue

Spring Onion wrote: »

It wont. See my previous posts on this. I cant be bothered repeating myself.
It has as much of a chance of turning into a bird - Possible maybe but unprecedented and highly unlikely.

Fact. Too many people here getting their information from the movies. It's not Outbreak fgs.

Peist2007

Spring Onion wrote: »

I am comparing mortality rate of West Africa v Western Europe. West Africa will always have a higher mortality rate for various reasons.

Is that a common view held by experts or is it just your opinion?

Spring Onion

Peist2007 wrote: »

Is that a common view held by experts or is it just your opinion?

Common view. It's quite simple really.

In Ireland, someone with ebola is likely to be given every chance of survival via intensive intravenous rehydration with sugars and salts.

In West Africa the supplies of above are poor, the number of healthcare workers to administer fluids is shockingly low and the fear/panic there is likely to result in ebola patients being abandoned altogether.

A healthy person here has a 50/50 chance or better. In Liberia right now, I would estimate 80/20 or worse.

Peist2007

Spring Onion wrote: »

Common view. It's quite simple really.

In Ireland, someone with ebola is likely to be given every chance of survival via intensive intravenous rehydration with sugars and salts.

In West Africa the supplies of above are poor, the number of healthcare workers to administer fluids is shockingly low and the fear/panic there is likely to result in ebola patients being abandoned altogether.

Great. You got some links to that? I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure. I wouldnt have too much faith in our hospitals given that MRSA is still rife, but thats the common view so happy days. Link?

Putinovsky

Spring Onion wrote: »

Stupid humans.

Yes, world leaders, healthcare professionals and heads of international monetary institutions are all stupid and the mighty Spring Onion is the true intellect.

First we heard that its very hard to get infected then that it won't spread from Sierra Leone after that it was that it won't travel to Europe and then we heard how developed countries with proper infrastructure will be able to contain it. Well all of that has been proven wrong.

Putinovsky

Spring Onion wrote: »

Common view. It's quite simple really.

In Ireland, someone with ebola is likely to be given every chance of survival via intensive intravenous rehydration with sugars and salts.

In West Africa the supplies of above are poor, the number of healthcare workers to administer fluids is shockingly low and the fear/panic there is likely to result in ebola patients being abandoned altogether.

A healthy person here has a 50/50 chance or better. In Liberia right now, I would estimate 80/20 or worse.

50/50 chance of survival, what great odds. Nothing to worry about people.

littlemac1980

Spring Onion wrote: »

Common view. It's quite simple really.

In Ireland, someone with ebola is likely to be given every chance of survival via intensive intravenous rehydration with sugars and salts.

In West Africa the supplies of above are poor, the number of healthcare workers to administer fluids is shockingly low and the fear/panic there is likely to result in ebola patients being abandoned altogether.

A healthy person here has a 50/50 chance or better. In Liberia right now, I would estimate 80/20 or worse.

To be fair - what's obvious is that that is actually your opinion - not a "common" view. But fair enough - it's your opinion and one you are entitled to.

In relation to the mortality rate itself there's as yet no objective basis for concluding the mortality rate will be any better or worse (which is also a possibility) in Western Countries. Any such conclusion must in the absence of actual data (thankfully) be based upon speculation.

nyarlothothep

Akrasia wrote: »

Everyone should be skeptical, especially about emotive topics like this, but skeptical thinking involves critically assessing the evidence and seeking out the best quality information before forming your opinion.

The experts in this situation are the WHO and the CDC and they are stating that we need to take this threat seriously and we should really be sending more resources to assist Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone to contain the epidemic before it gets completely out of control

It is completely out of control. 1700 beds to ready by December-ish and by that time around 28,000 people will be infected in Liberia. It's lost, pending a major, concerted international effort and some element of luck. I don't see that happening.

JapaneseLove

Im not trying to be smart or anything but to stop the spread of ebola then infected people will have to start being triaged. There is no cure for this disease and it is a horrible death. Bring out the infected, line them up, shoot them and burn the bodies. This is the only solution.

Now i know this sounds awful and fairly severe, but desperate times...

Wouldnt suprise me if it starts soon enough in africa.

Spring Onion

Peist2007 wrote: »

Great. You got some links to that? I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure. I wouldnt have too much faith in our hospitals given that MRSA is still rife, but thats the common view so happy days. Link?

I have no link and I am not going to look for one.
I want to rely on common sense for once.

Have you a "link" suggesting the quantity of relevant medical supplies and healthcare workers is higher than requirements in West Africa? Last I heard there were 60 doctors for 4,000,000 people in Liberia.

Spring Onion

littlemac1980 wrote: »

To be fair - what's obvious is that that is actually your opinion - not a "common" view. But fair enough - it's your opinion and one you are entitled to.

In relation to the mortality rate itself there's as yet no objective basis for concluding the mortality rate will be any better or worse (which is also a possibility) in Western Countries. Any such conclusion must in the absence of actual data (thankfully) be based upon speculation.

It's not an opinion!

Line in bold is BS. Look at the facts and make some deductions.

littlemac1980

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It is completely out of control. 1700 beds to ready by December-ish and by that time around 28,000 people will be infected in Liberia. It's lost, pending a major, concerted international effort and some element of luck. I don't see that happening.

Even at this stage, the impact of a coordinated international effort may be "too little, too late".

As we've already seen - doctors and nurses are not immune to this and are in fact most at risk even with stringent containment procedures and protocols.

There are now almost 8500 confirmed cases - plus all those who are incubating at present.

Putting a huge number of aid workers, soldiers and health staff into a situation of this magnitude creates additional risks.

The appropriate response to this crisis was required in May - when there were only less than 400 confirmed cases. At this stage, who can say for sure, but things appear to be quite bleak in terms of properly containing this and more critically preventing the virus spreading to a densely populated large urban area.

Spring Onion

You people...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks.

Supportive care-rehydration with oral or intravenous fluids- and treatment of specific symptoms, improves survival.

Spring Onion

I might be wrong but I think the mortality rate in the USA is only 20%.
Apart from the guy who arrived from Sierra Leone, I believe 4 people with the ebola virus have survived.

http://news.emory.edu/stories/2014/07/euh_ebola_patient/campus.html

Peist2007

Spring Onion wrote: »

I have no link and I am not going to look for one.
I want to rely on common sense for once.

Have you a "link" suggesting the quantity of relevant medical supplies and healthcare workers is higher than requirements in West Africa? Last I heard there were 60 doctors for 4,000,000 people in Liberia.

So you have given your opinion and portrayed it as the common view and have nothing to back it up. I am making no claims that ireland will have a mortality rate with Ebola of less than 50%. You are. Given the condescension you display in most of your posts, you'd at least think you have something to back yourself up with. Oh well :rolleyes:

Peist2007

Spring Onion wrote: »

You people...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

What? People are asking questions and rightly so. Your smugness knows no bounds it seems