Ebola virus outbreak

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.

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.