Ebola virus outbreak

whats newxt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLKpB1EHA

marco_polo

Peist2007 wrote: »

It is not "clear" that i think there is no medical reason at all influencing the decision. I never said that and you know it. You're grasping

He is referring to your original argument re medical treatment the one before you moved the goalposts to the reasons for repatriation.

ProfessorPlum

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. .....Link?

Peist2007 wrote: »

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

I think you've had plenty of answers to your original question, and you have realised your error.
My argument regarding repatriation was part of my back up of the original point.

Peist2007 wrote: »

It is not "clear" that i think there is no medical reason at all influencing the decision. I never said that and you know it. You're grasping

It is clear as per the above links that you didn't realise that better medical care would improve outcome (see your posts above)

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you've had plenty of answers to your original question, and you have realised your error.
My argument regarding repatriation was part of my back up of the original point.






It is clear as per the above links that you didn't realise that better medical care would improve outcome (see your posts above)

My question about the mortality rate dropping as the disease crosses the irish border was in response to Spring Onion's comment that the mortality rate in ireland will be less than 50%. I asked for a link to this and there were none. That is nothing to do with medical care or whether it is good, bad or indifferent.

You then commented on Spring Onion's comment and said this:

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

FFS lads, he said the mortality rate in the west would be less than 50% and gave the reasons why. And then was asked to back it up with a link? To what - the other numerous outbreaks of Ebola in the west?? Then when he surmises the known outbreaks in the west with their outcomes (admittedly statistically insignificant, but the only information available on outcomes in the west) he is ridiculed? What do you people want? The stats are just not there. Go google intensive care outcomes for other viral diseases versus no care at all and see what pops up in your browser.

Edit: And to add to that, why do you think Western countries are so eager to repatriate their sick citizens if the outcome at home is no better????

I have emboldened the relevant part on which i said that repatriation is not taking place because of the better treatment in a particular country eg UK. It will take place because one its citizens has caught a serious disease, one that is near the top of the disease food chain, and it owes a duty of care to it's citizens to protect them.

So, no, you have definitely misunderstood me. Do you really think i am suggesting that the differences between Liberian healthcare and UK healthcare are not a factor?

Edit: You keep saying "It is clear...." when the only thing clear is that you dont find any of what i am saying clear

Peist2007

marco_polo wrote: »

He is referring to your original argument re medical treatment the one before you moved the goalposts to the reasons for repatriation.

I argued against his thinking on the repatriation issue. The goalposts you are referring to are an entirely different poster. But thanks for the input.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

I argued against his thinking on the repatriation issue. The goalposts you are referring to are an entirely different poster. But thanks for the input.

As i said already, the repatriation was in back up to the point,(as you can see from my post you bolded above) which you have already conceded, that better medical care will improve outcomes. Which you questioned when you queried "Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?"

Keep up.

MadYaker

Lads I think I've got ebola.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

As i said already, the repatriation was in back up to the point,(as you can see from my post you bolded above) which you have already conceded, that better medical care will improve outcomes.
Keep up.

Keep up with myself? I took issue with the repatriation point and we have discussed it. I have been here from when our discussion began about an hour ago. It was quite clear that i was referring to the repatriation issue given that my post was a one liner and clearly stated that i disagreed with you on your repatriation point. You even responded by asking me to elaborate. So i am afraid you are the one lagging behind at the moment.

Edit: here ya go:

Peist2007 wrote: »

That wouldnt be my take on why people are being repatriated at all.

There ya go. Clearly my point was on repatriation.

Kunkka

MadYaker wrote: »

Lads I think I've got ebola.

Stay away from here a few people think you should be shot!

:eek::eek:

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Keep up with myself? I took issue with the repatriation point and we have discussed it. I have been here from when our discussion began about an hour ago. It was quite clear that i was referring to the repatriation issue given that my post was a one liner and clearly stated that i disagreed with you on your repatriation point. You even responded by asking me to elaborate. So i am afraid you are the one lagging behind at the moment.

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

You also seem to now agree that outcomes will be better in countries with better facilities - which answers the questions you posed regarding why
"Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?" and " 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"

So I'm glad we've at least clarified that for you.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

You also seem to agree that outcomes will be better in countries with better facilities - which answers the questions you posed regarding why
"Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?" and " 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"

So I'm glad we've at least clarified that for you.

Whoever helped you clarify things for me make sure you thank them. Because you werent much help :pac:

JapaneseLove

All i know is that Ebola can fu*k off until Assassins Creed Unity comes out and i complete it. Then i will gladly sh*t my liver and kidneys out in a putrid mess all over some hospital bed.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Whoever helped you clarify things for me make sure you thank them. Because you werent much help :pac:

Well in any case, I'm glad you understand now. Because for most people it would be blindingly obvious.

(I guess that's what happens when worms have their heads firmly stuck in the sand)

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well in any case, I'm glad you understand now. Because for most people it would be blindingly obvious.

(I guess that's what happens when worms have their heads firmly stuck in the sand)

Lord :rolleyes:

Some serious clowns on this thread!

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Lord :rolleyes:

Some serious clowns on this thread!

That's funny. I think my posts on this thread have been a little more informed than yours. But you're free to think whatever you like.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That's funny. I think my posts on this thread have been a little more informed than yours. But you're free to think whatever you like.

Do you have a system for measuring levels of informedness or is it solely based on your own personal biases?

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Do you have a system for measuring levels of informedness or is it solely based on your own personal biases?

No, it's something else that should be blindingly obvious.

WakeUp

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

In my opinion nobody should be repatriated if they become infected. its stupid and dangerous and violates all laws of containment. improving their chances of survival doesnt come into it or shouldnt come into it. and if the people themselves request to be brought back I think they are being selfish. when their governments move them back to their countries they are placing the medical teams and anyone else who has to deal with them and wider population in direct danger and risk by doing this. that is morally and ethically wrong. why should they be put at risk? should other people be put in danger to improve their chances. why should other people potentially have to become infected and possibly die to treat them. this is a bio level 4 agent this is different. is that fair. I dont think it is. especially when they dont have the training or the experience in dealing with such things. the response and dealing with this so far has been a shambles. violating laws of containment is playing with fire and this has proven true as we have seen in Spain. if I was the family of that nurse that became infected I would be preparing a lawsuit against the Spanish government for reckless negligence. theres a lesson in this for the Irish government should they have any bright ideas about bringing people back here who may become infected. weve read a lot about the transmission vectors of this virus I think a few more should be added that dont seem to get much mention - human error/dangerous recklessness/outright phuckwittery. stop violating the laws of containment its asking for trouble. moral reasons dont come into it.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

No, it's something else that should be blindingly obvious.

Ah, so personal bias then. I have a strong suspicion you still dont understand the point i was trying to make. Say hi to Spring Onion for me

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

In my opinion nobody should be repatriated if they become infected. its stupid and dangerous and violates all laws of containment. improving their chances of survival doesnt come into it or shouldnt come into it. and if the people themselves request to be brought back I think they are being selfish. when their governments move them back to their countries they are placing the medical teams and anyone else who has to deal with them and wider population in direct danger and risk by doing this. that is morally and ethically wrong. why should they be put at risk? should other people be put in danger to improve their chances. why should other people potentially have to become infected and possibly die to treat them. this is a bio level 4 agent this is different. is that fair. I dont think it is. especially when they dont have the training or the experience in dealing with such things. the response and dealing with this so far has been a shambles. violating laws of containment is playing with fire and this has proven true as we have seen in Spain. if I was the family of that nurse that became infected I would be preparing a lawsuit against the Spanish government for reckless negligence. theres a lesson in this for the Irish government should they have any bright ideas about bringing people back here who may become infected. weve read a lot about the transmission vectors of this virus I think a few more should be added that dont seem to get much mention - human error/dangerous recklessness/outright phuckwittery. stop violating the laws of containment its asking for trouble. moral reasons dont come into it.

I don't disagree with you. There's definitely an argument to be made on both sides - weighing up the improved medical outcome with better care (:eek:) versus the risks of lack of containment. I'm not arguing on either side.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ah, so personal bias then. I have a strong suspicion you still dont understand the point i was trying to make. Say hi to Spring Onion for me

Ok I've done a meta analysis of my posts versus yours. Mine come out waaaay better than yours.:rolleyes:

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ok I've done a meta analysis of my posts versus yours. Mine come out waaaay better than yours.:rolleyes:

Sure they do Professor

littlemac1980

US urges other countries to step up to the plate and get involved ASAP.

Seems that there is still a $300 million shortfall in what the UN are looking for at this stage.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201410131465.html

It's John Kerry's statement - there's a certain amount of the typical rhetoric you expect in Political statements, but in this case I think it rings true:

"Providing this money is a critical component of our ability to be able to meet this challenge, and we need people to step up now. Now is the time for action, not words. And frankly, there is not a moment to waste in this effort."

ceadaoin.

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Here's an interesting article regarding the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/269775/speedreads-cdcs-protocol-breach-explanation-for-texas-ebola-case-smacks-of-scapegoating-critics-say

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nurses-reject-scapegoat-accusations-after-cdc-head-blames-protocol-breach-for-dallas-nurse-infection-of-ebola-127957/

It appears that there is an amount of "backlash" arising from the conclusion of the CDC - that the nurse must have broken protocol in order for the infection to have occurred, i.e. she is being referred to as a "Scapegoat"

The other possibility - and the one that the CDC don't want to consider is that the protocol that they put in place, was in fact followed, but was in some way defective - meaning that they are to blame for this infection.

The first article mentions that the training may have been insufficient, and that the lack of oversight procedures in relation to the implementation of the safety and containment protocols is something that may have caused this infection.

Dr Frieden has apologized today that his comment appeared to be placing blame on the nurse. He said they are focusing their investigation on the removal of PPE and are now considering spraying people with chlorine or whatever before they remove their suits to decontaminate them. Should they not have been doing that anyway? Seems like it was the protocol not being up to scratch, not a breach that resulted in the nurse becoming sick. Also he said that he 'would not be surprised' if more cases are detected in healthcare workers in the next few days

youtube!

How are Thomas Duncan's family doing? I can't quite grasp how the nurse who treated him has contracted the virus but his own family whom he lived with in an apartment don't seem to have picked it up despite the fact that he was very sick? Come to think of it where are his family?

youtube!

youtube! wrote: »

How are Thomas Duncan's family doing? I can't quite grasp how the nurse who treated him has contracted the virus but his own family whom he lived with in an apartment don't seem to have picked it up despite the fact that he was very sick? Come to think of it where are his family?

There seems to be a complete media blackout since they were moved to a house by the Judge

youtube!

Jake1 wrote: »

There seems to be a complete media blackout since they were moved to a house by the Judge

That's a bit weird is it not?

ceadaoin.

youtube! wrote: »

That's a bit weird is it not?

Not really. Would you want the media camped outside your door endlessly speculating on whether you were going to get sick and possibly die? Plus, they have been moved to a large house in a gated community. Got to be safer than them being in a cramped apartment block with lots of residents. He did say that as of today they are not showing any symptoms.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not really. Would you want the media camped outside your door endlessly speculating on whether you were going to get sick and possibly die? Plus, they have been moved to a large house in a gated community. Got to be safer than them being in a cramped apartment block with lots of residents. He did say that as of today they are not showing any symptoms.

I agree no one would want the media.

In contrast, Mr Duncans's mother and nephew , I think, seem to be courting the media in US, pushed nicely along by Jesse Jackson. They are considering Legal Action against the Dallas hospital who treated Mr Duncan. They believe his death was racially motivated.

Jesse Jackson is now the family's official spokesperson

ceadaoin.

Jake1 wrote: »

I agree no one would want the media.

In contrast, Mr Duncans's mother and nephew , I think, seem to be courting the media in US, pushed nicely along by Jesse Jackson. They are considering Legal Action against the Dallas hospital who treated Mr Duncan. They believe his death was racially motivated.

Jesse Jackson is now the family's official spokesperson

I know, it's ridiculous. It's more likely got to do with the fact that he was uninsured, not his race. Did he actually disclose that he had been in contact with someone who had ebola? If not, why not? I'm sure if he had been upfront from the start he would have been admitted and isolated straight away.