Ebola virus outbreak

Creative Juices

realweirdo wrote: »

He only quoted a doctor who works in the area and is more qualified on this than anyone else. Difficult to lockdown an area though.

It was this generalisation that I was quoting numbers for.

"Realweirdo pointed out this is going to come back to haunt the west and now it is. Colonialism, a history of exploitation, unequal market relations, arms sales, I believe all these things and more besides have contributed to the absolutely fcked up backwards state of some African countries and now it's coming to bite the West in the ass."

Again 54 countries in Africa, 4 have ebola today.

Creative Juices

realweirdo wrote: »

He only quoted a doctor who works in the area and is more qualified on this than anyone else. Difficult to lockdown an area though.

It was this generalisation that I was providing numbers for.

"Realweirdo pointed out this is going to come back to haunt the west and now it is. Colonialism, a history of exploitation, unequal market relations, arms sales, I believe all these things and more besides have contributed to the absolutely fcked up backwards state of some African countries and now it's coming to bite the West in the ass."

Again 54 countries in Africa, 4 have ebola today.

Joe Doe

afraidofplanes wrote: »

Even if it's just bombarding our TDs/government with letters? ...Has this been set up or organised already? If not, is it time to do so?

Heard that Ireland was the 1st in EU to send a gov' Minister over there for 1st hand fact finding etc. Imagine as usual Ireland will punch above it's weight in donations, aid etc. Only so much a small gdp/country of 4.5m can do...

----

On a separate note Ebola has already killed more than 200 Doctors, Nurses, And other healthcare workers this year. Perhaps it's time to mobilise healthcare robots. There are robots available for all other dangerous tasks from meltdowns, deep sub exploration, b-disposal, landing on mars etc...

String

Nigeria seemed to have done amazingly well to contain it considering they are located so close to the source.

Dr Turk Turkelton

afraidofplanes wrote: »

Has anyone done anything proactive to help combat this abroad or at home if it should come here? Donating to MSF is a given and we should all be doing what we can here. I know Ireland has pledged money to the crisis as well. But what can we do as a group force? Even if it's just bombarding our TDs/government with letters? We need to ensure that we are doing what we can to combat the spread of disease in West Africa and to set up a system of proper education and if needs be, proper training and equipment for HCWs in Ireland if it comes here.

Has this been set up or organised already? If not, is it time to do so?

I propose another ice bucket challenge.
That will teach Ebola.

realweirdo

Creative Juices wrote: »

It was this generalisation that I was quoting numbers for.

"Realweirdo pointed out this is going to come back to haunt the west and now it is. Colonialism, a history of exploitation, unequal market relations, arms sales, I believe all these things and more besides have contributed to the absolutely fcked up backwards state of some African countries and now it's coming to bite the West in the ass."

Again 54 countries in Africa, 4 have ebola today.

Honestly you'd swear Africa was some paradise on earth. Yes it has 54 countries. All but 1 experienced colonialism at one stage or another. Most were ill equipped for independence. There has been very little investment in Africa and its largely been ignored by the rest of the world. In light of this it was hardly surprising something like ebola would get a foothold there and if left unchecked threathen everywhere else. Its irrelevant whether it was 4 countries or 54 and given that its out of control in those countries its only a matter of time before more countries suffer outbreaks. So yes ignoring africa's longterm plight was always going to come back to haunt the west which it is already doing.

nyarlothothep

Creative Juices wrote: »

Huge generalisation and the last 2 sentences make you appear drunk.

There are 54 African countries.

5 have ebola. (4 if you consider Nigeria contained and got rid of it).

So is that your pathetic attempt at an AH jibe? So stereotypically AH. 10,000 cases per week by December. Come back to me when you've grown up and dropped the childish, contemptible insults.

realweirdo

String wrote: »

Nigeria seemed to have done amazingly well to contain it considering they are located so close to the source.

They have indeed but I doubt thats the last of it for them. Having a reasonable healthcare system and a plan of action is a big help. Liberia has a terrible healthcare system. I'd also imagine education and literacy standards are far higher in Nigeria which also helps. Also the probability that people aren't living as much in one room shacks.

realweirdo

Joe Doe wrote: »

----

On a separate note Ebola has already killed more than 200 Doctors, Nurses, And other healthcare workers this year. Perhaps it's time to mobilise healthcare robots. There are robots available for all other dangerous tasks from meltdowns, deep sub exploration, b-disposal, landing on mars etc...

Thats actually an ingenious idea given that ebola requires a human host. Anything that lessons human interaction with for example a dead ebola victim has to be encouraged. I think you are years ahead of your time though.

Highflyer13

Obama has spoken strongly in the last few minutes about getting SWAT like teams to deal with ebola in the states within next 24hrs. Strong language from him is making me wonder just how many were infected at that Dallas hospital.

the_syco

AngryHippie wrote: »

Napalm.

Unless you can guarantee 100% that it will not cause the disease to spread, either by causing animals to migrate, or partial parts of humans getting heated enough to float away, but not kill the disease, napalm is not the answer.

realweirdo wrote: »

He only quoted a doctor who works in the area and is more qualified on this than anyone else. Difficult to lockdown an area though.

4,500 from the US armed forces can help enforce a lockdown.

Also, fear, guns, and NIMBY will also ensure no-one gets to leave their country during lockdown.

Expect to see Italy, Spain, and Saudi Arabia get a load of guns, anti-boat and anti-aircraft weapons over the next month or so.

RobertKK

Ebola is airborne, according to a new report by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. Researchers at the university just advised the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that “scientific and epidemiologic evidence” now exists that proves Ebola has the potential to be transmitted via exhaled breath and “infectious aerosol particles.”

The article goes onto say

The working theory about Ebola transmission currently being uttered by the CDC and the agency’s director Thomas Frieden, is incorrect and “outmoded” according to the University of Minnesota CIDRAP report. “Virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract,” University researchers concluded.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1541821/ebola-is-airborne-university-of-minnesota-cidrap-researchers-claim/

ceadaoin.

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Obama has spoken strongly in the last few minutes about getting SWAT like teams to deal with ebola in the states within next 24hrs. Strong language from him is making me wonder just how many were infected at that Dallas hospital.

4 or 5 showing symptoms if you believe the rumours.

Reading how the hospital managed the original patient, it would be more surprising if there weren't more cases.

RobertKK wrote: »

The article goes onto say




http://www.inquisitr.com/1541821/ebola-is-airborne-university-of-minnesota-cidrap-researchers-claim/

All this is already known. That's why the CDC define close contact as being within 3 feet of an infected person. They know it has the potential to spread through the air in aerosolized particles. It still isn't technically airborne.

ectoraige

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

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

It hasn't happened before, but there a first time for everything. Also, the common cold could mutate into a haemorrhagic virus with a 95% mortality rate. It hasn't before, but there's a first time for everything. Also, you might be trampled by an elephant during your lunch tomorrow. It hadn't happened before, but there a first time for everything.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

All this is already known. That's why the CDC define close contact as being within 3 feet of an infected person. They know it has the potential to spread through the air in aerosolized particles. It still isn't technically airborne.

While I'm quite happy to believe you on this (and certainly the alternative is pretty frightening) what then is the actual definition of : technically airborne?
What they're saying is that the virus can be caught by inhaling the exhaled breath of patients? Is that airborne?

realweirdo

If you define spreading by sneezing or coughing as airborne then technically yes it can be spread by this manner although its low risk. Put it this way if an ebola victim sneezed on you, you should be worried, but the chances of that happening soon are minimal. Physical contact is the most usual.form.of transmission and its no less serious than airborne infection. Lets hope someone comes up with a vaccine soon.

AngryHippie

the_syco wrote: »

Unless you can guarantee 100% that it will not cause the disease to spread, either by causing animals to migrate, or partial parts of humans getting heated enough to float away, but not kill the disease,

Then you haven't used enough. I'm talking lots and lots of napalm:eek:

afraidofplanes

The Inquisitr article is referring to a CIDRAP commentary from September, so as scary as all forms of transmission are it isn't exactly breaking news.

http /www. cidrap .umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

ceadaoin.

wexie wrote: »

While I'm quite happy to believe you on this (and certainly the alternative is pretty frightening) what then is the actual definition of : technically airborne?
What they're saying is that the virus can be caught by inhaling the exhaled breath of patients? Is that airborne?

Its droplet borne so it can only survive and travel for a limited distance in droplets created when someone sneezes, coughs or vomits. I agree though, to you and me, that means airborne. If it really was able to travel in the air then it would spread a lot quicker than it does now.

This explains it better

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/13/read-this-to-get-a-better-understanding-of-how-ebola-spreads/

Doctors mean something different from the public when they talk about a disease being airborne. To them, it means that the disease-causing germs are so small they can live dry, floating in the air for extended periods, thus capable of traveling from person to person at a distance. When inhaled, airborne germs make their way deep into the lungs.

Chickenpox, measles and tuberculosis are airborne diseases. Droplets of mucus and other secretions from the nose, mouth and respiratory tract transmit other diseases, including influenza and smallpox.

When someone coughs, sneezes or, in the case of Ebola, vomits, he releases a spray of secretions into the air. This makes the infection droplet-borne. Some hospital procedures, like placing a breathing tube down a patient’s air passage to help him breathe, may do the same thing.

Droplet-borne germs can travel in these secretions to infect someone a few feet away, often through the eyes, nose or mouth. This may not seem like an important difference, but it has a big impact on how easily a germ spreads. Airborne diseases are far more transmittable than droplet-borne ones.

youtube!

I just can't get the Walking Dead out of my head when I think of Ebola, it's really freaking me out!

Joe Doe

Aerosoled - yes.
Airborne - nope.

One tricky thing is the 21 day quarantine for all suspected cases, which could multiply fairly quickly to a lot of folks out of action, from each suspected multiplier, even if none are actual cases. Again, bring in the robots

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It droplet borne so it can only survive and travel for a limited distance in droplets created when someone sneezes or vomits. I agree though, to you and me, that means airborne. If it really was able to travel in the air then it would spread a lot quicker than it does now.

That's a bit of a difference indeed, still pretty scary stuff but not as scary as 'proper' airborne so.

InTheTrees

My name is URL wrote: »

What an absolute clusterfuck

If that's the situation in the world's most advanced healthcare system, and in the most developed nation on Earth, you can only imagine how bad things must be in the likes of Liberia.

Its not the "most developed" at all. Its based on how much someone can pay.

If you've spent any time in the USA you wouldn't be surprised that a dark skinned african man without health insurance, (in texas too!), was sent home with antibiotics and tylenol.

Today there was a story in the Dallas Daily News, from Duncan's nephew:

"On Friday, Sept. 25, 2014, my uncle Thomas Eric Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas. He had a high fever and stomach pains. He told the nurse he had recently been in Liberia. But he was a man of color with no health insurance and no means to pay for treatment, so within hours he was released with some antibiotics and Tylenol.
Two days later, he returned to the hospital in an ambulance. Two days after that, he was finally diagnosed with Ebola. "

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141014-exclusive-ebola-didnt-have-to-kill-thomas-eric-duncan-nephew-says.ece

gozunda

Canis Lupus wrote: »

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.

And in the case of those individuals who are infectious and in transit / 'wandering about' as in this case in the 1st world?

http://news.yahoo.com/traveler-liberia-first-ebola-patient-diagnosed-u-003007621--finance.html

Did you know that the majority of Irish hospitals currently do not have the correct protective gear for staff in the event a suspected case of Ebola presents itself.

EoghanIRL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you know that the majority of Irish hospitals currently do not have the correct protective gear for staff in the event a suspected case of Ebola presents itself.

You need to look further back though.
A person suspected with Ebola should be checked before getting on their flight .
And Ireland should be regulating people entering the country from at risk areas .

testicle

String wrote: »

Nigeria seemed to have done amazingly well to contain it considering they are located so close to the source.

So close? When was the last time you looked at a map? It's about 1000 miles!

5 countries in Africa have Ebola at the moment, not 4 as mentioned above. DRC also has an active strain, unrelated, but still Ebola.

Canis Lupus

gozunda wrote: »

And in the case of those individuals who are infectious and in transit / 'wandering about' as in this case in the 1st world?

I would imagine they'd fall Ill quickly and the people they were in close contact with then quarantined in the event they get sick (which I believe unlikely unless they were sitting right next to the infected person who started vomit on them like a scene out of 28 Days Later). Bear in mind that anyone infected on the flight isn't infectious themselves for a few weeks.

WakeUp

FullblownRose wrote: »

Among the nurses’ allegations was that the Ebola patient’s lab samples were allowed to travel through the hospital’s pneumatic tubes, opening the possibility of contaminating the specimen delivery system. The nurses also alleged that hazardous waste was allowed to pile up to the ceiling

the nurses have had a few choice words for the powers that be alright.

“We’ve been told a lot of things that have been wrong. We’ve been lied to, in terms of the preparation and the hospitals, and we know this because the nurses are telling us this and the nurses are the ones taking care of the patients.”

though fear not, the bureaucrats with their politically correct bullsh1t have this one hand. they are on it.

Joe Doe

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you know that the majority of Irish hospitals currently do not have the correct protective gear for staff in the event a suspected case of Ebola presents itself.

I'd wonder also what percentage of staff would opt in for full time & direct line of care duties for confirmed cases, even with e.g. triple pay or other incentives. Even if suitable protective gear was acquired.

All the more reason to order a couple of Xenex Bots, and custom upgrade with 360 Oculus VR® headsets using upgraded stereoscopic full-hd cams, 2-way comms and real-time tactile kinetic hydraulic motion abilities.