Ebola virus outbreak

zetalambda

nyarlothothep wrote: »

70.8% :eek:

Yeah there is probably only one solution and that's a vaccine, otherwise we're all screwed.

This thing makes HIV look like a walk in the park.

littlemac1980

zetalambda wrote: »

This thing makes HIV look like a walk in the park.

Yeah - that's the thing - you get HIV, sure it's a terrible disease, but you could effectively be walking around in ten years time enjoying life relatively well.

You get ebola and in 8 weeks time you're either dead or not and its really 50:50 which way it goes, unless of course you don't have ready access to proper treatment and your chances are far bleaker.

If for instance you failed to re-hydrate lost fluids in massive amounts your chances of survival are 0% simply because you'll die of dehydration.

ceadaoin.

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Technically we're not all screwed. As far as I'm aware - once you've got it once you can't get it again. There will be about half of us left in 3-5 years time. :eek:

As far as I know you're only immune to the strain you were infected with. There are 3 or maybe 4 different strains I think.

littlemac1980

ceadaoin. wrote: »

As far as I know you're only immune to the strain you were infected with. There are 3 or maybe 4 different strains I think.

Ah FFS! Sure kick a species while they're down why don't you!

madcabbage

Nobody is screwed, the survival rates are improving as the weeks go on. The developed countries will have better chances of survival because of better hygiene and sanitation! Now stop freaking out folks!

Duggy747

Aww, but I want to feast on the goo inside people's heads

ceadaoin.

madcabbage wrote: »

Nobody is screwed, the survival rates are improving as the weeks go on. The developed countries will have better chances of survival because of better hygiene and sanitation! Now stop freaking out folks!

The survival rate is decreasing. The WHO have said today 70% of people are dying. And we don't really know anything about survival rates in developed countries seeing as we don't have enough of a sample size yet.

zetalambda

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Yeah - that's the thing - you get HIV, sure it's a terrible disease, but you could effectively be walking around in ten years time enjoying life relatively well.

You get ebola and in 8 weeks time you're either dead or not and its really 50:50 which way it goes, unless of course you don't have ready access to proper treatment and your chances are far bleaker.

If for instance you failed to re-hydrate lost fluids in massive amounts your chances of survival are 0% simply because you'll die of dehydration.

An early HIV diagnosis these days means you'll live a full life albeit with a lifetime of medication. With Ebola, it's more like one month to find out if you're one of the lucky ones and the mortality rate was raised just in the last few hours to 70%. Give me HIV over Ebola any day of the week.

Egginacup

nyarlothothep wrote: »

70.8% :eek:

Yeah there is probably only one solution and that's a vaccine, otherwise we're all screwed.

How is 4033 equal to 70.8% of 8399?

littlemac1980

madcabbage wrote: »

Nobody is screwed, the survival rates are improving as the weeks go on. The developed countries will have better chances of survival because of better hygiene and sanitation! Now stop freaking out folks!

Survival rates aren't improving.

Better hygiene and sanitation only potentially affect the infection rate - to date despite the best efforts to prevent infection, both Spain and the US have had cases where infection occurred. So theoretically better hygiene and sanitation should help prevent contagion, thus far our systems remain largely untested and have been shown to be deficient in the very very small number of cases encountered.

As has been pointed out here numerous times before - sanitation and hygiene are all well and good in a controlled environment treating 1 or 2, perhaps 20 - 50 patients. What happens when there are 1000?

The actual mortality rate can likely be influenced by access to proper treatment, but it's not going to affect the base mortality rate.

If 1 out of every 2 people die when provided with an abundance of the World's State-of-the-Art treatments, then invariably more than that will die without such access... but without a vaccine the mortality rate can't magically be reduced to 10%.

Similarly, levels of treatment depend on Doctor:Patient ratios and access to and supply of treatment resources. As the number of patients increase, the ratio decreases and the availability of resources to treat patients decreases also.

There's really no logical reason for any level of complacency in Western Countries in relation to our ability to deal with this Virus - we have no logical basis to assume it wouldn't catastrophically affect us were an outbreak to occur.

madcabbage

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The survival rate is decreasing. The WHO have said today 70% of people are dying. And we don't really know anything about survival rates in developed countries seeing as we don't have enough of a sample size yet.

Don't you mean increasing? The Zaire strain which this is, was originally stated at 90% mortality. Now they're saying 70%. Half of those poor people in Africa have died simply because of the conditions they live in and the fact the treatment facilities are so overcrowded! Their health systems can't cope whereas we're in better situations.
I honestly think people should not be get worked up over this, the world has been through two flu pandemics in the last 10 or so years and they were contained. Considering it's not airborne, the Western world should be ok as long as health officials are prepared and allowed to do their jobs!

littlemac1980

Egginacup wrote: »

How is 4033 equal to 70.8% of 8399?

I believe that has to do with the fact that the 8399 cases are ongoing.

If the WHO have said the current mortality rate is now 70.8% (which they have) It must be the case that the 4033 deaths could be attributed to cases identified when there were only 5,696 cases in total.

ceadaoin.

An article about the cost of ebola care in the US. All I hear on the news is how the US has the best healthcare in the world and we will all be fine. Yes it is the best, if you can afford $1000 a day. If there is a small scale outbreak, a lot of people simply can't afford to go to hospital. That's going to facilitate the spread of the disease.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebola-patient-needs-500-000-041000284.html

The_Valeyard

Unless they get a grip on this within the next few weeks, those numbers of infected will quadruple quickly. Possibly a slow spread from west to east Africa. Once it reaches mwgacities or intercontinental airport hubs there could be real trouble. But the facts to avoid it are very straight forward and it does seem that catching the disease is also difficult. As long as it ain't airborne or mutates should be controllable.

littlemac1980

madcabbage wrote: »

Don't you mean increasing? The Zaire strain which this is, was originally stated at 90% mortality. Now they're saying 70%. Half of those poor people in Africa have died simply because of the conditions they live in and the fact the treatment facilities are so overcrowded! Their health systems can't cope whereas we're in better situations.
I honestly think people should not be get worked up over this, the world has been through two flu pandemics in the last 10 or so years and they were contained. Considering it's not airborne, the Western world should be ok as long as health officials are prepared and allowed to do their jobs!

I think conditions are likely a contributing factor to the high mortality rate, but I can't bring myself to believe conditions would be any better in Ireland (for instance) if we had to deal with 3000+ cases.

Creative Juices

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Since the last update to Wikipedia the WHO have released updated figures of:

Cases - 8,914

Deaths - 4,447

Is that not 50%?

littlemac1980

Creative Juices wrote: »

Is that not 50%?

Answered above in reply to another poster.

ceadaoin.

madcabbage wrote: »

Don't you mean increasing? The Zaire strain which this is, was originally stated at 90% mortality. Now they're saying 70%. Half of those poor people in Africa have died simply because of the conditions they live in and the fact the treatment facilities are so overcrowded! Their health systems can't cope whereas we're in better situations.
I honestly think people should not be get worked up over this, the world has been through two flu pandemics in the last 10 or so years and they were contained. Considering it's not airborne, the Western world should be ok as long as health officials are prepared and allowed to do their jobs!

No, the WHO have said that the death rate for this epidemic is increasing, it was never at 90%. The death rate for ebola zaire was up to 90% because of one small outbreak a few years ago where 90% of patients died so that was the highest known number. The CFR was around 50% on average for all outbreaks.

Creative Juices

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Answered above in reply to another poster.

I checked Wikipedia which you referenced and it states "As of September 2014, information from WHO puts the average mortality among those infected at 50%".
It's hard to know who to believe anymore. I wonder does WHO have too many spokesmen.

ceadaoin.

Creative Juices wrote: »

I checked Wikipedia which you referenced and it states "As of September 2014, information from WHO puts the average mortality among those infected at 50%".
It's hard to know who to believe anymore. I wonder does WHO have too many spokesmen.

I think the problem is the cases just aren't being properly reported anymore. The Liberian government have banned journalists from reporting and taking pictures from hospitals and the system is so overwhelmed. So there is a lag between what is happening and what is being reported. The 70% is coming from people on the ground. I expect the figures will start to reflect this in a couple of weeks as has usually been the case.

madcabbage

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I think conditions are likely a contributing factor to the high mortality rate, but I can't bring myself to believe conditions would be any better in Ireland (for instance) if we had to deal with 3000+ cases.

I don't think we'll ever get 3000 cases here, people are informed nowadays and like I've said, our standards of hygiene are vastly better. Take a look back at other outbreaks for a moment. Who remembers SARS? That was a very serious virus that was airbourne don't forget! How many people died? Consider that for bird flu and swine flu. All those respiratory diseases are much more likely to kill you. And consider how easy they spread, just like the seasonal flu.

Do you honestly think it'll come here? People are freaking because of those stats, the majority of those deaths are from the Africian countries where money, standard of living and the health systems are inferior to the developed world. Yes we're gonna see more cases here in Europe, and some folks will succumb to this disease but to suggest that there'll be this super pandemic like something out of a film is silly really.

I hope to Christ I don't ever have to eat these words....:o

Creative Juices

Yes I think you might be right. We may get a few unfortunate cases in Eire but it will be containable. I remember actually getting the swine flu but it was very mild in comparison to the "normal" flu which I got once and nearly killed me. I was glad I never took the swine flu vaccine when I started hearing about the side effects.

littlemac1980

Creative Juices wrote: »

I checked Wikipedia which you referenced and it states "As of September 2014, information from WHO puts the average mortality among those infected at 50%".
It's hard to know who to believe anymore. I wonder does WHO have too many spokesmen.

Its quite simple - all these are are sporadic estimates at present. The situation is ongoing, influenced by many factors, and it's largely impossible to categorise the base mortality rate, apart from indicating that it's very grave.

1 in 2 might be a reasonable estimate - where there is no limitation on access to modern treatment and its availability, but its impossible to say as yet for sure.

They can only report on the situation as it is unfolding - which happens to be in West Africa - which has its own unique factors that will likely skew the accuracy of the estimates.

In relation to the Wikipedia reference - it's from September - a spokesman today updated the current mortality rate to the 70% figure quoted above and in news articles today.

Creative Juices

littlemac1980 wrote: »

In relation to the Wikipedia reference - it's from September - a spokesman today updated the current mortality rate to the 70% figure quoted above and in news articles today.

Yes I understand but has the "spokesman" any data to back up WHO's new October number? Papers will print anything.

madcabbage

Those stats should be accessible if those cases are confirmed. I'm surprised the papers are allowed to spout these things if they are not 100% confirmed.

ceadaoin.

madcabbage wrote: »

I don't think we'll ever get 3000 cases here, people are informed nowadays and like I've said, our standards of hygiene are vastly better. Take a look back at other outbreaks for a moment. Who remembers SARS? That was a very serious virus that was airbourne don't forget! How many people died? Consider that for bird flu and swine flu. All those respiratory diseases are much more likely to kill you. And consider how easy they spread, just like the seasonal flu.

Do you honestly think it'll come here? People are freaking because of those stats, the majority of those deaths are from the Africian countries where money, standard of living and the health systems are inferior to the developed world. Yes we're gonna see more cases here in Europe, and some folks will succumb to this disease but to suggest that there'll be this super pandemic like something out of a film is silly really.

I hope to Christ I don't ever have to eat these words....:o

The mortality rate for SARS was 9.6%. Respiratory illnesses like the flu are more likely to kill you if you are very old or young, or have a compromised immune system. If you are a healthy adult there is a very small chance you will die from the flu. That's not the case for ebola.

I don't think there will be a huge pandemic, but it is something people should be concerned about and not just categorically refuse to admit it could ever be a problem in developed countries. The response in the US and Spain has shown that protocols need to implemented before any cases appear. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best and all that.

madcabbage

Creative Juices wrote: »

I checked Wikipedia which you referenced and it states "As of September 2014, information from WHO puts the average mortality among those infected at 50%".
It's hard to know who to believe anymore. I wonder does WHO have too many spokesmen.

Don't ever go with Wikipedia if you want 100% reliable information.

littlemac1980

madcabbage wrote: »

I don't think we'll ever get 3000 cases here, people are informed nowadays and like I've said, our standards of hygiene are vastly better. Take a look back at other outbreaks for a moment. Who remembers SARS? That was a very serious virus that was airbourne don't forget! How many people died? Consider that for bird flu and swine flu. All those respiratory diseases are much more likely to kill you. And consider how easy they spread, just like the seasonal flu.

Do you honestly think it'll come here? People are freaking because of those stats, the majority of those deaths are from the Africian countries where money, standard of living and the health systems are inferior to the developed world. Yes we're gonna see more cases here in Europe, and some folks will succumb to this disease but to suggest that there'll be this super pandemic like something out of a film is silly really.

I hope to Christ I don't ever have to eat these words....:o

I hope you are right, but I think if the rate of infections continue to grow at the rate they currently are then the people who have previously suggested it could get to East Africa and the large urban areas of Asia are correct.

I think if that happens then the likelihood is that there will probably be common instances of infection in Ireland and other First-World nations.

I can't yet say one way or the other if those can be contained. I am honestly concerned by the recent events in the US and in Spain. I hope in 4 weeks time there are no more reported infections. If there are though - then I will have genuine doubts as to our ability to contain the spread even in Western Countries.

littlemac1980

Creative Juices wrote: »

Yes I understand but has the "spokesman" any data to back up WHO's new October number? Papers will print anything.

I simply don't know - I have to take the papers at their word, or alternatively with a grain of salt like everyone else, and simply refer to what they print.

Creative Juices

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I simply don't know - I have to take the papers at their word, or alternatively with a grain of salt like everyone else, and simply refer to what they print.

I don't think anyone can take papers "at their word" in the modern world. They are constantly over-egging the pudding. I wouldn't even take a WHO spokesman "at his word". I would prefer to see data in an approved report created by independents experts.