Ebola virus outbreak

Maximus Alexander

Akrasia wrote: »

And this is why a single ebola patient in the U.S. has managed to infect two healthworkers despite them using the best available biohazard equipment?

Aids is a global catastrophy, If ebola was 'just' as dangerous as Aids, it would still be a massive crisis, but the method of transmission is not the same as Ebola.

Aids victims can have physical contact with other people without infecting them because they are not actively shedding the virus.

Ebola is a hemorrhagic illness, the internal organs liquify and late stage ebola patients suffer acute diahorrea, vomiting, bleeding from all orifices and open sores in their skin.

Physical contact with anyone experiencing symptoms of ebola poses a risk of infection, but the greatest risk is at late stages where the viral loads are enormous and any physical contact at all with the patient can pass on the virus and even after the patient dies as the body is still highly infectious after death. Aids is bad, don't get me wrong, but ebola poses a different kind of a threat because it is more contagous but for a shorter period of time.

Obviously if you express it like that, it sounds utterly terrifying. And therein lies the problem.

Despite all of that, the reproductive rate of ebola is lower than that of HIV. ie. On average someone carrying ebola infects fewer people than someone carrying HIV. Or SARS. Or Mumps. Or Smallpox.

ProfessorPlum

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Obviously if you express it like that, it sounds utterly terrifying. And therein lies the problem.

Despite all of that, the reproductive rate of ebola is lower than that of HIV. ie. On average someone carrying ebola infects fewer people than someone carrying HIV. Or SARS. Or Mumps. Or Smallpox.

Yes. And despite this there is an out of control epidemic in West Africa with number of infected increasing exponentially, causing the WHO, the UN, the CDC etc to become increasingly worried about the threat both to Africa and the rest of the world.

Just sayin' like.

Maximus Alexander

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes. And despite this there is an out of control epidemic in West Africa with number of infected increasing exponentially, causing the WHO, the UN, the CDC etc to become increasingly worried about the threat both to Africa and the rest of the world.

Just sayin' like.

Of course they're worried - they're right to be. Their job is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

That doesn't justify people half the world away entering panic mode over something that is highly unlikely to ever impact them.

wexie

MadYaker wrote: »

Almost completely false. HIV and Ebola both survive in bodily fluids. Ebola spreads a bit easier than HIV but not much. It is destroyed by exposure to UV light (sunlight) so it doesn't really last outside the body for very long.

From the CDC website :

Ebola is killed with hospital-grade disinfectants (such as household bleach). Ebola on dried on surfaces such as doorknobs and countertops can survive for several hours; however, virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

A few hours.....kinda depends on your point of view if that's very long or not.
Seems to me in a few hours many people could have touched the same door handle in Dublin airport, or what about those little gate thingies at customs....

Canis Lupus

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dude, ebola does not have a similar mode of transmission, unless you want to categorise it under the label fluid transmission which misses the finer details that are important! For example HIV is transmitted through sex or needles ie drug use in most cases. Ebola...well all you have to do is touch the surface of an object that may have the virus, (perhaps someone got sick etc didn't wash their hands properly) and you're already infected. In the case of HIV the transmission is almost specialised and there are treatments for it, whereas with Ebola we don't even know for sure whether Zmapp works, and there's not enough of it anyway.

Whu... what? You need an open wound or to touch your mouth/eyes. Ebola doesn't just soak into you. I know you like to hang out in the CT forum but seriously....

ProfessorPlum

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Of course they're worried - they're right to be. Their job is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

That doesn't justify people half the world away entering panic mode over something that is highly unlikely to ever impact them.

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Maximus Alexander

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Why would you assume that my original post was directed towards people who are well informed rather than the crazies that you have acknowledged the existence of? ie. The people that it was very clearly directed towards.

Akrasia

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Rule one of the internet
Nobody shall rebuke any quote from the Simpsons

pueblo

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well it's two nurses in Texas, and one in Spain. That would point to there being some weakness in the protocols being used.
A good protocol should not have such a high number of failures.

The nurse in Spain broke protocol by touching her face with a gloved hand...

nothing wrong with the protocol...just the execution

ProfessorPlum

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would you assume that my original post was directed towards people who are well informed rather than the crazies that you have acknowledged the existence of? ie. The people that it was very clearly directed towards.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Annual HIV deaths: ~1,600,000
Annual Malaria deaths: ~627,000
Annual Influenza deaths: 250,000 - 500,000

Ebola deaths to date: < 5500

It's time to crack open our skulls and feast on the goo inside!

Possibly as your original post was omnidirectional. Usually if a poster wishes to address another, they will either PM them or quote the post to which they were replying. Otherwise we have to assume the post is for everyones enjoyment.:pac:

ProfessorPlum

pueblo wrote: »

The nurse in Spain broke protocol by touching her face with a gloved hand...

I'm not sure if the nurse in question agrees that that is the case.

pueblo wrote: »

nothing wrong with the protocol...just the execution

Problem with that is, the execution is a rather large part of the protocol.

Peist2007

Beano wrote: »

so you have already assumed that there is a major outbreak then? The point i am making is that we would never get to that stage.

Expand on your point. If it couldnt get to that stage, how would ireland cope with one case? Where would we carry out that care? Now, how about 5 cases? 10 cases? 100 cases?

I am pie

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

wexie

Peist2007 wrote: »

Expand on your point. If it couldnt get to that stage, how would ireland cope with one case? Where would we carry out that care? Now, how about 5 cases? 10 cases? 100 cases?

From what I gather there are currently two (2!!) hospital beds equipped to deal with Ebola (Mater and James' I think)(unless they've recently increased the capacity.

So as long as there aren't more than 2 cases I guess we'll be grand.

Wouldn't like to see any cases treated in the likes of any of the regional hospitals though.

realweirdo

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Annual HIV deaths: ~1,600,000
Annual Malaria deaths: ~627,000
Annual Influenza deaths: 250,000 - 500,000

Ebola deaths to date: < 5500

It's time to crack open our skulls and feast on the goo inside!

And what will the comparable stats be in 1 year, 5 or 10 years given the current rate of spread?

Ebola makes HIV look benign in comparison.

ProfessorPlum

wexie wrote: »

From what I gather there are currently two (2!!) hospital beds equipped to deal with Ebola (Mater and James' I think)(unless they've recently increased the capacity.

So as long as there aren't more than 2 cases I guess we'll be grand.

Wouldn't like to see any cases treated in the likes of any of the regional hospitals though.

I think we're doing a little bit better than that!
The Mater has a 12 bed isolation unit: 2 'high spec' negative pressure rooms, 4 standard negative pressure rooms, and a shared 6 bed unit.

Don't know what the situation is in the rest of the nations hospitals.

Akrasia

I am pie wrote: »

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

The chances of infection from sharing a public space with infected people (before symptoms appear or in the early stages of symptoms) are very remote. The infection risk is primarily through close contact with symptomatic patients while they are being treated or by contact with clothing or bedding that has been soiled by an infected person. This means that it is not that hard to contain ebola once you have the resources to do so.

The problem is when the number of patients exceeds the ability to treat them in the required isolation environment (as is the case in west africa where resources have always been overstretched) In the developed world, we can contain a certain level of the illness, but we still have a finite capacity to treat people and contain the illness.

I'm hoping that there will be a vaccine developed quickly which can be given to front line emergency services workers which will do a huge amount to reduce the spread of the virus.

wexie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think we're doing a little bit better than that!
The Mater has a 12 bed isolation unit: 2 'high spec' negative pressure rooms, 4 standard negative pressure rooms, and a shared 6 bed unit.

Don't know what the situation is in the rest of the nations hospitals.

In that case I was given false information, I will go back to my source and suitably chastise them.

...let's hope we won't need them

Canis Lupus

I am pie wrote: »

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

No as the virus doesn't seem to transmit via sweat. Now if the patient vomited, bled or smeared their poo on the door handle that would be a different matter.

smash

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No as the virus doesn't seem to transmit via sweat. Now if the patient vomited, bled or smeared their poo on the door handle that would be a different matter.

If the patient put their fingers in their mouth or coughed in their hand and touched a door handle surely it would spread wouldn't it?

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No as the virus doesn't seem to transmit via sweat. Now if the patient vomited, bled or smeared their poo on the door handle that would be a different matter.

I dont think we can make any concrete assumptions on how this virus spreads. Seems to me that people wearing protective gear are getting infected. They are then immediately stated to have not been following protocols. I dont think the Spanish nurse would agree with that. I have a feeling we arent being told the full story re transmission.

Lucy and Harry

This thing could go air born and get worse those doomsday survivalists are not looking as weird nowadays.

wexie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No as the virus doesn't seem to transmit via sweat. Now if the patient vomited, bled or smeared their poo on the door handle that would be a different matter.

Or coughed or sneezed....

Ebola is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids of a person who has symptoms of Ebola disease. 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.

Ficheall

MadYaker wrote: »

It is destroyed by exposure to UV light (sunlight) so it doesn't really last outside the body for very long.

So does that mean it will spread easier in Ireland than in Africa?

I am pie

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

This thing could go air born and get worse those doomsday survivalists are not looking as weird nowadays.

ah hang on now, that's a fair leap to make.

I suppose the best hope is that now that there is money to be made from creating a vaccination the big pharma companies will find the motivation within their sainted hearts to do so.

Possibly a good argument for publically founded pharmaceutical development, not likely whilst there are countries to invade and money to spend on important stuff like cruise missiles and nuclear subs.

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

If the patient put their fingers in their mouth or coughed in their hand and touched a door handle surely it would spread wouldn't it?

It could, I'm not a doctor just going on what I read and from what I read the above scenarios are considered low risk.

I would have some comments to make though.

1: A person isn't infectious until they start showing symptoms and are quickly bedridden there after. Therefore whilst they are mobile they're not infectious and afterwards they won't be walking about much.

2: A person from the 1st world with confirmed Ebola or even suspected Ebola isn't likely to be allowed to wander about touching stuff like some kind of Ebola fairy and would generally be conscientious enough to not smear their bodily fluids around in the first place.

papu

Ficheall wrote: »

So does that mean it will spread easier in Ireland than in Africa?

Depends on the amount of UV needed , just because we don't have blaring sun doesn't mean we don't have UV light...

Canis Lupus

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

This thing could go air born and get worse those doomsday survivalists are not looking as weird nowadays.

That's so unlikely you can stop worrying about it now.

ProfessorPlum

Ficheall wrote: »

So does that mean it will spread easier in Ireland than in Africa?

Somehow I think the amount of UV light out there will be one of the lessor contributors to it's rate of spread.

So no, it doesn't mean it will spread easier in Ireland than Africa.





(of course we're heading into the winter with shorter daylight hours - if only it had struck during summer we would have had a distinct advantage over equatorial regions given their relatively short summer daylight time)

Lucy and Harry

The movie OUTBREAK with Dustin Hoffman had it go air born.Movies cant be wrong they research things