Ebola virus outbreak

Peist2007

The WHO really need to come onto Boards and be put right by some of the posters here, hype clowns the lot of them

ThinkAboutIt

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Depends on where you live. If I was a West African I'd be very scared. If I lived in Ireland I wouldn't care so much and here in Australia I'm equally blase about it. As long as it's on the 'radar' and our respective government take the relevant steps then I don't think there's much to worry about as a population.

You simply can't compare the modern world both in terms of resources and general education of the public to a lot of the African people. Hell the previous president of South Africa was virtually an AIDS denier and the current one has said in the past that AIDS can be prevented by showering after sex. These are people that put more faith in juju men than real doctors and if you can have leaders of state thinking such things then you can only imagine the education level of the remainder.

I'm not saying that this isn't a crisis, it is, for Africa and arguably for populous poor states like India etc but I don't think there's any particular cause for panic for us in 1st world countries. Any possible outbreak as unlikely as it is would be contained very quickly.

Stop it with your common sense please.

ProfessorPlum

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Depends on where you live. If I was a West African I'd be very scared. If I lived in Ireland I wouldn't care so much and here in Australia I'm equally blase about it. As long as it's on the 'radar' and our respective government take the relevant steps then I don't think there's much to worry about as a population.

You simply can't compare the modern world both in terms of resources and general education of the public to a lot of the African people. Hell the previous president of South Africa was virtually an AIDS denier and the current one has said in the past that AIDS can be prevented by showering after sex. These are people that put more faith in juju men than real doctors and if you can have leaders of state thinking such things then you can only imagine the education level of the remainder.

I'm not saying that this isn't a crisis, it is, for Africa and arguably for populous poor states like India etc but I don't think there's any particular cause for panic for us in 1st world countries. Any possible outbreak as unlikely as it is would be contained very quickly.

A lot of sense there, but so long as Ebola is a crisis in Africa, it poses a very real threat to the rest of the world, particularly poorer countries with poor infrastructure. So richer countries in the west can't afford to be complacent. The crisis in Africa needs to be brought under control, or at the very least we can expect sporadic cases/outbreaks in the west. How long can we keep up the heightened vigilance we see at the moment (holding planes full of people at airports, locking down hotels and department buildings etc)

TheBeardedLady

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/how-avoid-catching-ebola?CMP=fb_gu


The Spanish media has published nothing like this, so it's reassuring the read.

Creative Juices

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.

Excellent article, thanks. Reassuring alright.

FullblownRose

From the Guardian atricle (which is very good) ''Public toilets, in general, are very unlikely to be a risk.''. I kind of disagree- the ONY time I'd use one of them is if I was feeling very unwell!

TheBeardedLady

FullblownRose wrote: »

From the Guardian atricle (which is very good) ''Public toilets, in general, are very unlikely to be a risk.''. I kind of disagree- the ONY time I'd use one of them is if I was feeling very unwell!

I wouldn't be rushing to use them in Sierra Leone but I wouldn't avoid them here just yet. I'd give them a quick wipe with my hand sanitiser before using them (I've become a bit of an OCD freak with that stuff now).


Edit: Although yes, I'd probably only use them if I really had to.

nyarlothothep

hiFidelity wrote: »

Some years ago I used to watch the FEMA detention camps conspiracy videos on Youtube.

People were speculating as to why these camps were being built across the US; Martial Law and all that. Now I am beginning to wonder.


I know, I know; CT forum ->>

Not to mention the Georgia Guidestones and the Denver Airport Murals. Both funded by anonymous organisations.

nyarlothothep

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/how-avoid-catching-ebola?CMP=fb_gu


The Spanish media has published nothing like this, so it's reassuring the read.

If anything I suspect it's intended to prevent mass panic when ebola arrives in the UK. Where did the 10 cases figure come from? I would be very nervous with 10 ebola cases in the UK.

nyarlothothep

Consider the costs of sending people in with Hazmat suits, setting up isolation units and so on in Western countries over say a 5 year period. Let's assume Ebola becomes endemic in Africa, then we have sporadic outbreaks in Europe, the US and probably a mass outbreak in China/India. Leading to a global pandemic, which destroys economies and so forth. This leads to the question: why is there not a mass international effort, regardless of cost it will be less expensive to deal with this now than to let it escalate which it will. So why is this??? Why the political theatre at airports and not the allocation of money and resources to deal with the actual problem, these countries that are hotbeds of infection? Why is this? Is it really a matter of a lack of foresight? Or is it a depopulation program?

littlemac1980

The WHO are saying there will be up-to 10000 new cases a week in 2 months time if the current situation isn't somehow improved upon - though its not clear how precisely the current situation can be improved. Those wouldn't appear to be exaggerated projections based on the growth in cases experienced so far, and that appears to be based on outbreaks not occurring in another African or even Western Country or urban area.

That's compared to the 1000 cases per week experienced over the last 4 weeks. h.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/10000-new-ebola-cases-per-week-could-be-seen-who-says

That's a tremendous number of potential cases to deal wit

Could a concerted effort possibly reverse that type of growth, and isolate and treat 40,000 people spread across three entire West African countries?

zetalambda

Pretty soon, we could be knocking on the entrance to one of those underground bunkers and apologizing for all the ridicule and laughter.

nyarlothothep

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The WHO are saying there will be up-to 10000 new cases a week in 2 months time if the current situation isn't somehow improved upon - though its not clear how precisely the current situation can be improved. Those wouldn't appear to be exaggerated projections based on the growth in cases experienced so far, and that appears to be based on outbreaks not occurring in another African or even Western Country or urban area.

That's compared to the 1000 cases per week experienced over the last 4 weeks. h.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/10000-new-ebola-cases-per-week-could-be-seen-who-says

That's a tremendous number of potential cases to deal wit

Could a concerted effort possibly reverse that type of growth, and isolate and treat 40,000 people spread across three entire West African countries?

There's no way short of a miracle. Hopefully it might burn itself out within a year in these countries.

ceadaoin.

GENEVA (AP) — The death rate in the Ebola outbreak has risen to 70 percent and there could be up to 10,000 new cases a week in two months, the World Health Organization warned Tuesday.

WHO assistant director-general Dr. Bruce Aylward gave the grim figures during a news conference in Geneva. Previously, WHO had estimated the death rate at around 50 percent.

Aylward said the 70 percent death rate was "a high mortality disease" in any circumstance and that the U.N. health agency was still focused on trying to get sick people isolated and provide treatment as early as possible.

http://news.yahoo.com/10-000-ebola-cases-per-week-could-seen-124410379.html

Also, the aid worker who was brought back to Germany for treatment has died.

In Berlin, a U.N. medical worker infected with Ebola in Liberia died despite "intensive medical procedures." The St. Georg hospital in Leipzig said Tuesday that the 56-year-old man, whose name has not been released, died overnight of the infection.

The man tested positive for Ebola on Oct. 6, prompting Liberia's U.N. peacekeeping mission to place 41 other staff members under "close medical observation."

littlemac1980

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Consider the costs of sending people in with Hazmat suits, setting up isolation units and so on in Western countries over say a 5 year period. Let's assume Ebola becomes endemic in Africa, then we have sporadic outbreaks in Europe, the US and probably a mass outbreak in China/India. Leading to a global pandemic, which destroys economies and so forth. This leads to the question: why is there not a mass international effort, regardless of cost it will be less expensive to deal with this now than to let it escalate which it will. So why is this??? Why the political theatre at airports and not the allocation of money and resources to deal with the actual problem, these countries that are hotbeds of infection? Why is this? Is it really a matter of a lack of foresight? Or is it a depopulation program?

You've omitted a possible reason why there hasn't been a concerted effort.

Perhaps, it's possible that those who could and would respond to reverse the situation know its already too late.

Here's the Wikipedia link of the list of all known Ebola Outbreaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks

This outbreak is already a magnitude of almost 20 times anything previously experienced.

It's really odd and unnerving to periodically review the entry for the current outbreak. Both in terms of the numbers affected/who have died/and the list of Countries affected which has continued to increase.

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

Cases - 8,914

Deaths - 4,447

littlemac1980

zetalambda wrote: »

Pretty soon, we could be knocking on the entrance to one of those underground bunkers and apologizing for all the ridicule and laughter.

I won't be letting you in because you laughed at me ;-)

nyarlothothep

70.8% :eek:

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

littlemac1980

nyarlothothep wrote: »

70.8% :eek:

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

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:

TheBeardedLady

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If anything I suspect it's intended to prevent mass panic when ebola arrives in the UK. Where did the 10 cases figure come from? I would be very nervous with 10 ebola cases in the UK.

Shhhh.

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!