Ebola virus outbreak

littlemac1980

Creative Juices wrote: »

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.

But sure what are you pointing that out to me for? I'd prefer to see 6 winning lotto numbers on my ticket tonight, but it's highly unlikely to happen.

The papers can only report on what limited information is available.

It's up to you what to believe.

Creative Juices

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The papers can only report on what limited information is available.

It's up to you what to believe.

Ah yes, but it's up to you what you post. I can only assume that you believe it's 70% which is fine.

ceadaoin.

Creative Juices wrote: »

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.

Do you really think the WHO would make up figures? If they are saying that, they have reason to say it. Would you be questioning it so much if they said the death rate dropped to 20%? I'm sure in the next couple of weeks we will start to see the official numbers reflecting this.

The WHO are the people who collate the data and report the statistics. Why do we need 'independent experts' exactly? Independent of what?

madcabbage

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

Only for WHO stepping in, SARS would have ran rampant and that rate would have been a lot higher. I'm only using those cases as a point I'm making. Those were serious airbourne pathogens that spread easier than this case of Ebola. Ebola can only been contracted from close contact via sweat, saliva or blood. The people who have contracted Ebola outside of Africa have been the doctors, nurses and aid workers who are the front line. There's always gonna be a chance they were gonna get it. For them to spread it to the general population and cause a pandemic is unlikely. Not being naive, just been realistic. People are educated and in the know, especially in this part of the world. Doing simple thing like washing your hands, carrying sanitising gels or avoiding public toilets/ transport will help.

littlemac1980

Creative Juices wrote: »

Ah yes, but it's up to you what you post. I can only assume that you believe it's 70% which is fine.

What are you on about? :rolleyes:

All I did was refer to the WHO's revised mortality rate (reported today) in showing how it was probably calculated.

That was in response to another poster's query as to how the mortality rate wasn't about 50% given the recently updated figures for new cases and deaths. (which I did post)

Someone else mentioned the new mortality rate of 70% in any event, so I'm just gonna go with you're confused!

I am pie

madcabbage wrote: »

Only for WHO stepping in, SARS would have ran rampant and that rate would have been a lot higher. I'm only using those cases as a point I'm making. Those were serious airbourne pathogens that spread easier than this case of Ebola. Ebola can only been contracted from close contact via sweat, saliva or blood. The people who have contracted Ebola outside of Africa have been the doctors, nurses and aid workers who are the front line. There's always gonna be a chance they were gonna get it. For them to spread it to the general population and cause a pandemic is unlikely. Not being naive, just been realistic. People are educated and in the know, especially in this part of the world. Doing simple thing like washing your hands, carrying sanitising gels or avoiding public toilets/ transport will help.

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that it's contagious through sneeze droplets. Not sure what the technical term for "sneeze droplets" is in the medical world, but i understand that if a carrier sneezes and the droplets get in your eyes, or in are inhaled via nose or mouth that the soft tissue areas of the eyes/nose/mouth are very susceptible.

I know that "airbourne" is not the correct term here, but if breathing in sneeze is a possible way to get infect it'll take a lot more than washing hands to protect against infection?

Sounds grim, hopefully I've been misled but that's what I read.

wildefalcon

IT webside has a mortality rate of 70%:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/ebola-mortality-rate-jumps-to-70-1.1962974

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/ebola-mortality-rate-jumps-to-70-1.1962974

I must admit that I don't believe the infection figures - it MUST be way higher and be underreported, all the villages and towns where there are no western doctors and no MSF staff.

marco_polo

I am pie wrote: »

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that it's contagious through sneeze droplets. Not sure what the technical term for "sneeze droplets" is in the medical world, but i understand that if a carrier sneezes and the droplets get in your eyes, or in are inhaled via nose or mouth that the soft tissue areas of the eyes/nose/mouth are very susceptible.

I know that "airbourne" is not the correct term here, but if breathing in sneeze is a possible way to get infect it'll take a lot more than washing hands to protect against infection?

Sounds grim, hopefully I've been misled but that's what I read.

It is possible I guess (and droplets are technically not airborne as you rightly say ) but sneezing coughing aren't a symptom of Ebola so its not a major factor in terms of tramission as I understand

madcabbage

I am pie wrote: »

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that it's contagious through sneeze droplets. Not sure what the technical term for "sneeze droplets" is in the medical world, but i understand that if a carrier sneezes and the droplets get in your eyes, or in are inhaled via nose or mouth that the soft tissue areas of the eyes/nose/mouth are very susceptible.

I know that "airbourne" is not the correct term here, but if breathing in sneeze is a possible way to get infect it'll take a lot more than washing hands to protect against infection?

Sounds grim, hopefully I've been misled but that's what I read.

They're saying it can't be ruled out, but I'd imagine it could. But when are you gonna be in close contact in that situation unless you known that person.

ceadaoin.

I am pie wrote: »

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that it's contagious through sneeze droplets. Not sure what the technical term for "sneeze droplets" is in the medical world, but i understand that if a carrier sneezes and the droplets get in your eyes, or in are inhaled via nose or mouth that the soft tissue areas of the eyes/nose/mouth are very susceptible.

I know that "airbourne" is not the correct term here, but if breathing in sneeze is a possible way to get infect it'll take a lot more than washing hands to protect against infection?

Sounds grim, hopefully I've been misled but that's what I read.

Yes the virus can survive for a limited time in the air in aerosolized droplets. The common cold also spreads this way. It really isn't as hard to catch as was reported at first. Although the main route of infection does seem to from coming into direct contact with bodily fluids either by touching a contaminated object or touching an infected person. From the CDC website

Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas.html

madcabbage

marco_polo wrote: »

It is possible but sneezing coughing isn't a symptom of Ebola so its not a major factor in terms of tramission as I understand

Coughing is though. I'd imagine sweat and diarrhoea are the problematic symptoms. Public toilets would be a big no no if that's the case.

I am pie

There was an potential case in Brasil, thank god it turned out to be negative as land borders are very porous here and it would be difficult to contain in this part of the world. Chile might be the least worst country for it to hit in latin america as to a certain extent they are in a position to better control their borders. If it hit one of the major cities in Brasil or here in Buenos Aires it would be very difficult to control due to population density and fairly chaotic public health management.

snubbleste

They've given a detailed account of Thomas Duncan's last days

The day after Duncan had been admitted to hospital with the deadly disease he begged staff to wrap a diaper round him because he was too exhausted to make it to the toilet. By the time he had been settled down in a hospital bed, he was projectile vomiting and suffering explosive diarrhea...
The harrowing details of how the deadly Ebola virus ravaged Duncan's body were revealed by his 1,400-page medical documents, which his family released to the media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791171/ebola-victim-thomas-eric-duncan-s-organs-slowly-failed-begged-diaper-lay-dying.html

Creative Juices

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you really think the WHO would make up figures? If they are saying that, they have reason to say it. Would you be questioning it so much if they said the death rate dropped to 20%? I'm sure in the next couple of weeks we will start to see the official numbers reflecting this.

The WHO are the people who collate the data and report the statistics. Why do we need 'independent experts' exactly? Independent of what?

It's ok, I will wait for the full WHO report and updated fact sheet.

ceadaoin.

Creative Juices wrote: »

It's ok, I will wait for the full WHO report and updated fact sheet.

Here is the study where the 70.8% figure came from and how they arrived at that number.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

The majority of patients are 15 to 44 years of age (49.9% male), and we estimate that the case fatality rate is 70.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69 to 73) among persons with known clinical outcome of infection.

Case fatality is among the most important topics for further investigation. Our estimates of case fatality are consistent in Guinea (70.7%), Liberia (72.3%), and Sierra Leone (69.0%) when estimates are derived with data only for patients with recorded definitive clinical outcomes (1737 patients).

ProfessorPlum

Creative Juices wrote: »

It's ok, I will wait for the full WHO report and updated fact sheet.

The WHO regularly update their information. Last time I checked a couple of days ago, they were estimating mortality for this outbreak at just over 70% - as has been reported here. It's freely available on their website.
I imagine the 'full report' won't be written until the outbreak is deemed to be over.

Creative Juices

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

Creative Juices

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked to created the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.

Creative Juices

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus i.e a hugely exaggerated pandemic. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked to created the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.

Creative Juices

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus i.e a hugely exaggerated pandemic. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked and paid to create the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.

Creative Juices

Apologies my edit button seems to be broken or something.

ceadaoin.

Creative Juices wrote: »

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

See my link above for the total known outcome cases. The total cases figure of 8000+ includes all confirmed cases but not all those outcomes are known. Those people could still be sick or may have died or recovered but it isn't confirmed. Of the known resolved cases, the fatality rate is 70%.

The actual definitive CFR will only be known when the epidemic is over.

Creative Juices

ceadaoin. wrote: »

See my link above for the total known outcome cases. The total cases figure of 8000+ includes all confirmed cases but not all those outcomes are known. Those people could still be sick or may have died or recovered but it isn't confirmed. Of the known resolved cases, the fatality rate is 70%.

The actual definitive CFR will only be known when the epidemic is over.

Fair enough, I just find it odd that they can go from 50% to 70% so quickly and also how quickly the report was published in the New England medical journal. Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus i.e a hugely exaggerated pandemic. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked and paid to create the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.
I don't know if 70% mortality rate changes things in terms of required actions.

Creative Juices

ceadaoin. wrote: »

See my link above for the total known outcome cases. The total cases figure of 8000+ includes all confirmed cases but not all those outcomes are known. Those people could still be sick or may have died or recovered but it isn't confirmed. Of the known resolved cases, the fatality rate is 70%.

The actual definitive CFR will only be known when the epidemic is over.

Edit test

gladrags

Creative Juices wrote: »

Fair enough, I just find it odd that they can go from 50% to 70% so quickly and also how quickly the report was published in the New England medical journal. Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus i.e a hugely exaggerated pandemic. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked and paid to create the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.
I don't know if 70% mortality rate changes things in terms of required actions.

I agree, how many individuals have been infected,and have recovered globally?

We only hear of the mortality rate.

The 70% rate is specific to a case study.

Similar to previous pandemic scares,the EV has taken wings.

ProfessorPlum

Creative Juices wrote: »

The point you may have not been following is that a poster earlier posted actual WHO cases and fatalities which showed 50% (4500/9000 roughly). That was the September mortality rate. Then it was reported that this has jumped to 70% in October but we did not have the actual cases or fatality numbers. That's a big jump and all I wanted was the data i.e. how many cases and how many fatalities. Simples.

Remember folks that the WHO lost a huge amount of credibility over the H1N1 virus. The only beneficiaries of that were the pharmaceutical companies who were asked to created the vaccines. The WHO themselves know their reputation is at stake here.

I think I'm following fine thanks. As has been pointed out, of the 9000 cases you mention, each has to come to it's conclusion (live/die) before you can say what the mortality is, so it's not quite as simple as dividing one by the other.

realweirdo

The mortality rate is not so important as the rate of new infections at this stage. Only a huge international effort can stop this and it is sadly lacking. Once more rich nations like Germany have played no major role in trying to solve this. Huge funds are required from countries like germany, a billion at least. They can well afford it. Once more its the supposedly evil US who are taking a lead while the Germans are hardly to be seen.

Duck's hoop

Imo the most dangerous bit of this thing is not necessarily the virus itself but the panic in general population it could very well engender.

Panic buying, mob law, pogroms targeting Africans could all lead to a very messy wee world. Combined with even a few hundred cases in a major city and there's a very large law and order problem.

realweirdo

realweirdo wrote: »

The mortality rate is not so important as the rate of new infections at this stage. Only a huge international effort can stop this and it is sadly lacking. Once more rich nations like Germany have played no major role in trying to solve this. Huge funds are required from countries like germany, a billion at least. They can well afford it. Once more its the supposedly evil US who are taking a lead while the Germans are hardly to be seen.

I reckon if there was a case of Ebola in Germany, the world would be given a lesson on how containment should work.

realweirdo

Still amazed how some people are so relaxed about this. Once ebola becomes endemic in africa its game over, sooner or later.

There won't be pograms against Africans but if the rest of the world wants to avoid it there will in time need to be restrictions on people leaving Africa. Every year tens of thousands of africans try to illegally migrate to Europe. If only a handful of these had ebola there could be serious consequences in Europe.

Ebola is a major symptom of 3rd world poverty which will come back to haunt the west.