Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ebola virus outbreak

Options
1686971737499

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    realweirdo wrote: »
    To quote Jack Nicolson...I have neither the time or the inclination...which I don't..if you haven't copped on to how ebola has spread I'm not going to waste my precious time with you. Please rebury your head in the sand and don't bother responding to me again.

    Says he who makes up possible pathways for spread.

    I'm well read up on the literature thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,945 ✭✭✭✭josip


    snubbleste wrote: »
    23 tests for Ebola performed on 14 people in Ireland
    All 23 of the tests performed returned negative results.

    We need to get better tests.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    FourFourFM wrote: »
    Are we all going to die? (Genuine question). I'm worried!

    Not at all, put it this way, you have way more chance of dying in a road accident than dying of ebola in Ireland. Are you worried about that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    josip wrote: »
    We need to get better tests.

    :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,599 ✭✭✭sashafierce


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    This post has been deleted.

    This thread is 80% scaremongering and 20% fact. The best thing is to identify the posters that look like they know what they are talking about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Ebola tax!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,277 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Breaking...... hospital in Connecticut evaluating patient with Ebola-like symptons.

    This is one of two people who were in Liberia researching ebola. They were told they didn't need to sequester themselves. Here is the story from a couple of days ago. Hopefully it's 'just' malaria or something and not ebola. It says they didn't come into to contact with anyone infected so it seems unlikely. Generally so far, if you hear about it beforehand, it's not ebola.

    http://foxct.com/2014/10/14/yale-researchers-who-planned-to-be-quarantined-are-back-in-new-haven-not-isolated/

    Here the story about the crew from the airline the second nurse flew on being on paid leave. They say she was 'Symptomatic earlier than thought'. I'd imagine that means she had other symptoms beside the fever, probably vomiting or diarrhea so the situation is worse than originally thought.

    "NEW YORK, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Frontier Airlines said six crew members were placed on paid leave for 21 days "out of an abundance of caution," after learning that a nurse who had treated an Ebola victim may have been symptomatic when she flew on the airline earlier this week.

    The leave affects two pilots and four flight attendants aboard flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth on Oct. 13, which carried a Texas nurse who later tested positive for the deadly virus, Frontier said in statement late Wednesday.

    The Centers for Disease Control had informed the airline Wednesday that the nurse "may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected, including the possibility of possessing symptoms while on board the flight," the statement said.

    The nurse, Amber Vinson, 29, was isolated immediately after reporting a fever on Tuesday, Texas Department of State Health Services officials said. She had treated Liberian patient Thomas Eric Duncan, who died of Ebola on Oct. 8 and was the first patient diagnosed with the virus in the United States. (Reporting by Alwyn Scott; Editing by Bernadette Baum)"


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Greyjoy wrote: »
    A rational approach to the Ebola news coverage from, of all places, Fox News. His advice at the 3.35 mark puts the 'outbreak' into perspective -

    Wish his Fox News colleagues would listen to him!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Wish his Fox News colleagues would listen to him!

    Surprising from Fox alright but there are some awful stupid Americans so panic could start much quicker than it would here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Surprising from Fox alright but there are some awful stupid Americans so panic could start much quicker than it would here.

    I am constantly surprised that he has not been given his walking papers. Everyone
    else on Fox News comes across as unbalanced!! The hysteria on Megyn Kelly's
    programme is mind blowing!! :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    I am constantly surprised that he has not been given his walking papers. Everyone
    else on Fox News comes across as unbalanced!! The hysteria on Megyn Kelly's
    programme is mind blowing!! :(

    I don't watch Fox or Sky as a rule but I can only imagine their "excitement".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    I hope that's not a little dig at me after out conversation yesterday - that was about misinformation regarding modes of transmission, remember?

    Now it would only be the very naive among us who would believe that a hospital administration (or almost any organisation run almost exclusively by bean counters) would not be capable of getting involved in serious amount of arse covering in a situation like this. It's almost even more amazing that people think that hospitals are kitted out with the 'proper gear' for this kind of disease. They are not. My first reaction when I heard the nurses' 'breach of protocol', both in Texas and Spain was ' well, that's a little convenient, isn't it'. There's understandably a lot of 'learning as we go' here. I think the hospitals in question would be better served if they were a little more honest. At this rate they are loosing the confidence of their communities rapidly, and that will only lead to panic and hysteria.


    As a point of information, although I think it's a technicality at this point, Nigeria and Senegal are not officially Ebola free yet. The WHO will declare them free after 42 days (Senegal tomorrow and Nigeria Monday), so including those two, we have 5 African countries affected with this outbreak, and a separate outbreak in DRC.

    No Plum wanst directed at you. I actually agree with a lot of what you say and disagree with some of it though in the main enjoy reading what you post not sure if enjoy is the correct the word though I think you know what Im getting at. you seem quite knowledgeable about plenty of things so no I dont believe you personally are naive. you think the hospitals should be more honest? how about the CDC and politically corrects muppets in Washington be more honest with their "this is contained little risk of spreading we are well equipped to deal with this" bullsh1t. clearly the nurses and front line people tasked with dealing with this would say otherwise. and to try and pin the blame on the nurses and medical staff, who according to them are neither prepared nor trained to deal with this, contrary to what the cdc and politicians are spouting. its bad form. its unfair. we dont have time "to learn" if people in hospitals are suppose to be dealing with this then they need to know what they are doing and have the right set up. the powers that be tell us we must contain it we must do this we must do that. yet they wont shut down west African airspace nor restrict the movement of people. we have bureaucrats pretending to take the lead and really they are incapable. it should be the scientific community in control of this. not politically correct incapable bumbling phuckin nothing to see here sure its grand bureaucrats.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭littlemac1980


    WakeUp wrote: »
    No Plum wanst directed at you. I actually agree with a lot of what you say and disagree with some of it though in the main enjoy reading what you post not sure if enjoy is the correct the word though I think you know what Im getting at. you seem quite knowledgeable about plenty of things so no I dont believe you personally are naive. you think the hospitals should be more honest? how about the CDC and politically corrects muppets in Washington be more honest with their "this is contained little risk of spreading we are well equipped to deal with this" bullsh1t. clearly the nurses and front line people tasked with dealing with this would say otherwise. and to try and pin the blame on the nurses and medical staff, who according to them are neither prepared nor trained to deal with this, contrary to what the cdc and politicians are spouting. its bad form. its unfair. we dont have time "to learn" if people in hospitals are suppose to be dealing with this then they need to know what they are doing and have the right set up. the powers that be tell us we must contain it we must do this we must do that. yet they wont shut down west African airspace nor restrict the movement of people. we have bureaucrats pretending to take the lead and really they are incapable. it should be the scientific community in control of this. not politically correct incapable bumbling phuckin nothing to see here sure its grand bureaucrats.


    It's unfortunate that even in this well meant, supposedly well thought out report - simple critical errors are being made.

    He says that they need 70% in care facilities (i.e. isolated) by 01.12.2014.

    He says that by 01.12.2014 current projections are that there will be 10,000 new cases per week (as previously reported/discussed here).

    He says that under current projections they expect to have 4300 beds in ebola facilities by 01.12.2014.

    He says therefore they need 2700 more beds by 01.12.2014 to reach the required 70% target.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that by 01.12.2014 there will be far in excess of 10,000 existing cases.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 01.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 08.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 15.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 there will be a projected 20,000 new cases that fortnight.

    What he should realise (because its primary school maths) is that 7000 beds will never be 70% of the cumulative figures at 31.12.2014, and people who need care don't magically disappear once they are placed in a bed.

    70% of the total figure at that stage will be somewhere in the region of 25000-30000 beds, some will have died in the meantime (6-16 days) some will recover, but its certainly not close to 7000.

    These are the people in charge. This is why there is reason to worry.

    Its basic maths - not rocket science. :mad::mad::mad::mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    It's unfortunate that even in this well meant, supposedly well thought out report - simple critical errors are being made.

    He says that they need 70% in care facilities (i.e. isolated) by 01.12.2014.

    He says that by 01.12.2014 current projections are that there will be 10,000 new cases per week (as previously reported/discussed here).

    He says that under current projections they expect to have 4300 beds in ebola facilities by 01.12.2014.

    He says therefore they need 2700 more beds by 01.12.2014 to reach the required 70% target.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that by 01.12.2014 there will be far in excess of 10,000 existing cases.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 01.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 08.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 15.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 there will be a projected 20,000 new cases that fortnight.

    What he should realise (because its primary school maths) is that 7000 beds will never be 70% of the cumulative figures at 31.12.2014, and people who need care don't magically disappear once they are placed in a bed.

    70% of the total figure at that stage will be somewhere in the region of 25000-30000 beds, some will have died in the meantime (6-16 days) some will recover, but its certainly not close to 7000.

    These are the people in charge. This is why there is reason to worry.

    Its basic maths - not rocket science. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

    thats a good post littlemac. the people that are meant to be in control of this are bungling this as you have pointed out. and we cant afford to do that. common sense would dictate that for a start we shut down west African airspace and restrict the movement of people from those affected countries until this is brought under control. but no the powers that be think otherwise in their all knowing wisdom. among lots of other things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Wish his Fox News colleagues would listen to him!
    Surprising from Fox alright but there are some awful stupid Americans so panic could start much quicker than it would here.
    brooke 2 wrote: »
    I am constantly surprised that he has not been given his walking papers. Everyone
    else on Fox News comes across as unbalanced!! The hysteria on Megyn Kelly's
    programme is mind blowing!! :(

    The calm report is probably because the markets are looking at risk of crashing which (I guess) would cost the owners (and vested interests) of Fox a huge sum of money. Fox gains nothing by spreading panic about Ebola.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    Bacchus wrote: »
    The calm report is probably because the markets are looking at risk of crashing which (I guess) would cost the owners (and vested interests) of Fox a huge sum of money. Fox gains nothing by spreading panic about Ebola.

    Fair point but besides being a 'calm report', its also perfectly accurate factually and Americans have little to fear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    WakeUp wrote: »
    No Plum wanst directed at you. I actually agree with a lot of what you say and disagree with some of it though in the main enjoy reading what you post not sure if enjoy is the correct the word though I think you know what Im getting at. you seem quite knowledgeable about plenty of things so no I dont believe you personally are naive. you think the hospitals should be more honest? how about the CDC and politically corrects muppets in Washington be more honest with their "this is contained little risk of spreading we are well equipped to deal with this" bullsh1t. clearly the nurses and front line people tasked with dealing with this would say otherwise. and to try and pin the blame on the nurses and medical staff, who according to them are neither prepared nor trained to deal with this, contrary to what the cdc and politicians are spouting. its bad form. its unfair. we dont have time "to learn" if people in hospitals are suppose to be dealing with this then they need to know what they are doing and have the right set up. the powers that be tell us we must contain it we must do this we must do that. yet they wont shut down west African airspace nor restrict the movement of people. we have bureaucrats pretending to take the lead and really they are incapable. it should be the scientific community in control of this. not politically correct incapable bumbling phuckin nothing to see here sure its grand bureaucrats.


    Yeah, I don't think you're going to get many people disagreeing with you that it was badly managed, either from a medical or a political / public awareness pov.

    Unfortunately, the fact is, and there isn't a whole lot we can do to magic it away, but hospital and medical/nursing staff are just not trained or equipped to deal with this kind of situation. Like it or now, we will have to learn. I believe some centres are spending some time at this right now, but the logistics of getting that kind of training out to every hospital and health centre, even in this country never mind the US is overwhelming. And who are going to be the teachers? There is going to be a certain amount of trial and error here.
    Having said all that, I am confident that the US will contain their outbreak, just like Nigeria did. The more important message to get out there is what people should do if they think they or their family have symptoms (and spell out what the risks for contact are) rather than the entire population worrying about the non existing risks of touching a door handle in South Dakota.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Fair point but besides being a 'calm report', its also perfectly accurate factually and Americans have little to fear.

    Yeah but normal Fox style reporting would show those exact same facts in a different light...

    "2 Ebola infections on US soil! How many more can we expect as the crisis in Africa spreads! Quarantine measures are being discussed by top level officials at the White House! We go live to Kathy outside the quarantine zone. How's it looking Kathy!?"

    "Well Bob, they have Ebola!"

    "Thank you Kathy! Stay tuned as we follow Ebola on it's tour around America!"


  • Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Lucy and Harry


    Yeah and Fox news blames every thing on Obama.They always find a way


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    n an exchange on Fox News, for instance, Megyn Kelly talked to a former official from the Department of Justice about closing borders:

    “These are people like the person in Dallas, who vomited everywhere, who Lord knows what he did on the airplane and in the Dulles airport.”

    “He was asymptomatic on the airplane, they said.”

    “Yeah, well you don’t have to be symptomatic to spread this disease.”

    “They say you do.”

    “Well, we’ll see.”


    Fox's usual bipartisan reporting style ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭EDit


    got the gender wrong as well haven't they...it was a woman on the plane, right?

    Ignore me...they are talking about the first guy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    Yeah I believe stock markets are suffering a correction anyway following 4-5 years of growth. However an exaggerated panic from ebola could send markets into a dive if Americans started doing sill things like not traveling etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭Creative Juices


    EDit wrote: »
    got the gender wrong as well haven't they...it was a woman on the plane, right?

    I think that references the 1st imported ebola victim, not the healthcare worker.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    It's unfortunate that even in this well meant, supposedly well thought out report - simple critical errors are being made.

    He says that they need 70% in care facilities (i.e. isolated) by 01.12.2014.

    He says that by 01.12.2014 current projections are that there will be 10,000 new cases per week (as previously reported/discussed here).

    He says that under current projections they expect to have 4300 beds in ebola facilities by 01.12.2014.

    He says therefore they need 2700 more beds by 01.12.2014 to reach the required 70% target.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that by 01.12.2014 there will be far in excess of 10,000 existing cases.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 01.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 08.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

    What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 15.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 there will be a projected 20,000 new cases that fortnight.

    What he should realise (because its primary school maths) is that 7000 beds will never be 70% of the cumulative figures at 31.12.2014, and people who need care don't magically disappear once they are placed in a bed.

    70% of the total figure at that stage will be somewhere in the region of 25000-30000 beds, some will have died in the meantime (6-16 days) some will recover, but its certainly not close to 7000.

    These are the people in charge. This is why there is reason to worry.

    Its basic maths - not rocket science. :mad::mad::mad::mad:



    I can see your confusion, but look at it this way.

    There is no way on earth that every ebola patient will have a bed by Dec 1st. There is some chance that 70% will. If they can contain 70%, they are along way towards restricting spread. If they can restrict spread, the problem will become more manageable.
    The goal at this stage is to slow down/stop the exponential spread of the disease.

    There's only one thing worse than having no goals, and that is having goals that are in no way even remotely achievable. The man is being realistic. At least give him that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭littlemac1980


    I can see your confusion, but look at it this way.

    There is no way on earth that every ebola patient will have a bed by Dec 1st. There is some chance that 70% will. If they can contain 70%, they are along way towards restricting spread. If they can restrict spread, the problem will become more manageable.
    The goal at this stage is to slow down/stop the exponential spread of the disease.

    There's only one thing worse than having no goals, and that is having goals that are in no way even remotely achievable. The man is being realistic. At least give him that.

    No, No, No, No...

    That's obviously not what I'm saying.

    There's no confusion involved here on my part whatsoever.

    The UN spokesman clearly outlines a plan to "reverse" the growth in cases which is as per the WHO report to ensure 70% of all cases are treated in Ebola units.

    His exact words are "If we reach these targets - we can turn this epedemic around"

    Then explains the formula to achieve that objective, i.e. an additional 2300 beds.

    My post demonstrates how his plan is completely incorrect and he (or who ever wrote the report he is reading directly from - or whoever is responsible for the maths in it) has their numbers all entirely incorrect.

    It's fairly obvious what I'm pointing out, and fairly simply set out to allow you follow the point. So please, let's not stray from the point being made - an additional 2300 beds - which is what is aimed to achieve by 01.12.2014 isn't next to near enough to achieve the 70% required.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    No, No, No, No...

    That's obviously not what I'm saying.

    There's no confusion involved here on my part whatsoever.

    The UN spokesman clearly outlines a plan to "reverse" the growth in cases which is as per the WHO report to ensure 70% of all cases are treated in Ebola units.

    Then explains the formula to achieve that objective, i.e. an additional 2300 beds.

    My post demonstrates how his plan is completely incorrect and he (or who ever wrote the report he is reading directly from - or whoever is responsible for the maths in it) has their numbers all entirely incorrect.

    It's fairly obvious what I'm pointing out, and fairly simply set out to allow you follow the point. So please, let's not stray from the point being made - an additional 2300 beds - which is what is aimed to achieve by 01.12.2014 isn't next to near enough to achieve the 70% required.

    Well of course the objective is to reverse the growth. But he can't just waltz in there tomorrow and expect it all to happen. His maths is obviously wrong an you are of course right. Sigh.

    Your projection assume intervention makes absolutely no difference to numbers becoming infected. We might as well all pack up and head home so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    So the original case in the US back on the 1st Oct? I would hope lessons have been learned since he was brought in and treated. They are already in the process of tracking the contacts of the recent nurse who travelled.

    Btw date irrelevant - you stated ...
    ....


    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.

    In this example as in other subsequent incidences - infected individuals Were Not bedridden - Were Mobile - and Were Walking around!
    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.

    Unfortunately being in the 'first world' is no protection against unconfirmed individuals carrying Ebola coming into contact with others and whilst some of those infected may be in basic denial or just be unlucky enough not to have available / proper healtcare - contamination will happen as a result of explosive diarrhoea and projectile vomiting as in the case in the US - no need for any one to 'smear their bodily fluids around' at all :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    At this stage Im starting to believe the conspiracy theorists and this is a planned mass culling. I dont know how to explain the following:

    Spanish Nurse whos last patient died of Ebola reports a slight temp and is told go home and rest for a week. No isolation.

    American Nurse whos last patient dies of Ebola reports a rise in temp and is OKed to take an internal flight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    At this stage Im starting to believe the conspiracy theorists and this is a planned mass culling. I dont know how to explain the following:

    Spanish Nurse whos last patient died of Ebola reports a slight temp and is told go home and rest for a week. No isolation.

    American Nurse whos last patient dies of Ebola reports a rise in temp and is OKed to take an internal flight.

    And let's not forget the Yale students who aren't known to have been in contact with Ebola patients or health workers yet who are reporting feverish symptoms that are indicative of malaria and aren't being quarantined...if it were a conspiracy I would posit the evil cabal of depopulation architects are engineering circumstances which they allow to play out autonomously, thereby 'sinning by deputy.' If anything the world economy is in something of a lethargic slump and a lower population might kick-start it again, that or resources or something...


Advertisement