Ebola virus outbreak

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.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Well they have already treated 2 ebola cases brought back from west Africa without incident so far, one of whom died today.

Creative Juices

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

Sorry but these are sweeping and largely unhelpful statements. Even in African alone, it hasn't ever affected some of the poorest 3rd world countries e.g Eritrea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Togo, Malawi, Sudan, Somalia, Burundi etc.

People wont take it seriously if you portray it some sort of colonial curse.

realweirdo

Creative Juices wrote: »

Sorry but these are sweeping and largely unhelpful statements. Even in African alone, it hasn't ever affected some of the poorest 3rd world countries e.g Eritrea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Togo, Malawi, Sudan, Somalia, Burundi etc.

People wont take it seriously if you portray it some sort of colonial curse.

Its posts like yours that are more unhelpful. Everything I said was the absolute truth. The WHO are now predicting 10,000 cases a week in Africa. Once that happens its game over in africa. They have struggled and largely failed to contain a few hundred ebola cases. What hope 10,000 a week? None.

We all need to grow up about this and if it comes to it isolate large parts of Africa.

And the bleeding heart liberals can go whinge somewhere else, thats if they manage to avoid being infected with ebola in years to come.

The window of opportunity to defeat ebola has largely closed thanks mainly to the inaction of rich countries like germany who as of mid september had donated the grand total of 3 million euro to the fight. The americans on the otherhand contributed 150 million by that stage.

YFlyer

Would Ebola survive in our wet environment?

nyarlothothep

realweirdo wrote: »

Its posts like yours that are more unhelpful. Everything I said was the absolute truth. The WHO are now predicting 10,000 cases a week in Africa. Once that happens its game over in africa. They have struggled and largely failed to contain a few hundred ebola cases. What hope 10,000 a week? None.

We all need to grow up about this and if it comes to it isolate large parts of Africa.

And the bleeding heart liberals can go whinge somewhere else, thats if they manage to avoid being infected with ebola in years to come.

The window of opportunity to defeat ebola has largely closed thanks mainly to the inaction of rich countries like germany who as of mid september had donated the grand total of 3 million euro to the fight. The americans on the otherhand contributed 150 million by that stage.

How is it feasible to enforce a military perimeter over tens of thousands of miles of borders?

Tin Foil Hat

YFlyer wrote: »

Would Ebola survive in our wet environment?

Why wouldn't it? It survives and thrives in bodily fluids.

ProfessorPlum

YFlyer wrote: »

Would Ebola survive in our wet environment?

Ebola survives in hosts - be they animal or human. It doesn't really care what the weather is like

Tin Foil Hat

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ebola survives in hosts - be they animal or human. It doesn't really care what the weather is like

Actually, I read somewhere today that the Ebola virus can survive on surfaces for longer in colder weather.

FullblownRose

Mosst Irish people have an bsession with central heating, does it like hot, dry rooms?

Creative Juices

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

Everything in this post is the truth you say? I would like to break it down.

1. "Once ebola becomes endemic in africa its game over, sooner or later."

I am not even sure what that means. What game is over and when/how will it become endemic in Africa?

2. "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."

So there will be pograms if we do not close the borders on the whole continent?

3. "If only a handful of these had ebola there could be serious consequences in Europe."

Five people with ebola will have what consequences in Europe exactly? Can you back it up?

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

Sorry but as I already replied, this is just meaningless waffle.

Creative Juices

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

Everything in this post is the "absolute truth" you say above? I would like to break it down if you don't mind.

1. "Once ebola becomes endemic in africa its game over, sooner or later."

I am not even sure what that means. What game is over and when/how will it become endemic in Africa?

2. "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."

So there will be pograms if we do not close the borders on the whole continent?

3. "If only a handful of these had ebola there could be serious consequences in Europe."

Five people with ebola will have what consequences in Europe exactly? Can you back it up?

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

Sorry but as I already replied, this is just meaningless waffle.