ebola

gozunda

MadYaker wrote: »

MRSA is entirely different to ebola.

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

According to this report from the HSE

http://www.hpsc.ie/A-Z/MicrobiologyAntimicrobialResistance/EuropeanAntimicrobialResistanceSurveillanceSystemEARSS/ReferenceandEducationalResourceMaterial/SaureusMRSA/LatestSaureusMRSAdata/File,3990,en.pdf


"The annual trend in MRSA proportions and rates have been downwards since 2006 and as of 2013 were at their lowest since surveillance began"

If I am reading it right there are around 200-300 cases a year which seems fairly small to me.

jh79

Possible case in Donegal

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0821/638520-ebola/

MadYaker

gozunda wrote: »

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

Read the report posted above. 200 - 300 cases a year of MRSA in Irish hospitals, constant decline since records of MRSA cases began.

You are using MRSA as an example to substantiate your argument that HSE would be unable to deal with ebola and I'm pointing out that it's nonsense for 2 reasons. 1: the HSE have MRSA largely under control and 2: MRSA is a rapidly evolving and very contagious antibiotic resistant bacteria. Ebola on the other hand is a far less contagious virus that is a lot easier to contain.

Harold Weiss

jh79 wrote: »

Possible case in Donegal

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0821/638520-ebola/

Probably BS.

NIMAN

Definitely BS.

gozunda

MadYaker wrote: »

Read the report posted above. 200 - 300 cases a year of MRSA in Irish hospitals, constant decline since records of MRSA cases began.

You are using MRSA as an example to substantiate your argument that HSE would be unable to deal with ebola and I'm pointing out that it's nonsense for 2 reasons. 1: the HSE have MRSA largely under control and 2: MRSA is a rapidly evolving and very contagious antibiotic resistant bacteria. Ebola on the other hand is a far less contagious virus that is a lot easier to contain.

NOTE: 1. MRSA is still a significant problem in many Irish hospitals. It is believed it has been endemic in Irish hospitals for at least 40 years - it has not been eradicated and has also mutated into more virulent and less treatable strains. It has been suggested that this has been at least partially as a result of poor disease detection and management in the past. Ireland has been found to have one of the largest prevalence of MRSA in Europe.

http://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/research-on-decade-of-mrsa-samples-in-irish-hospitals-may-help-prepare-for-potential-emergence-of-new-mrsa-strains/4623#.U_5bHpUg_IU

2. The current outbreak of Ebola is by far the largest outbreak to date and appears to be increasingly defying containment and appears to be more contagious than previously thought. It also kills over half of all people who contract the disease
See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11058052/Ebola-sufferer-William-Pooley-did-not-take-risks-while-working-with-infected-patients.html


Short and curlies is that HSE haven't been able to properly manage MRSA so it is unlikely that they would to do any better with a serious disease such as Ebola. Believe whatever 'nonsense' you wish. That's your opinion. My personal experience of potential disease control in a number of Irish hospitals is vastly different.

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

NOTE: 1. MRSA is still a significant problem in many Irish hospitals. It is believed it has been endemic in Irish hospitals for at least 40 years - it has not been eradicated and has also mutated into more virulent and less treatable strains. It has been suggested that this has been at least partially as a result of poor disease detection and management in the past. Ireland has been found to have one of the largest prevalence of MRSA in Europe.

http://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/research-on-decade-of-mrsa-samples-in-irish-hospitals-may-help-prepare-for-potential-emergence-of-new-mrsa-strains/4623#.U_5bHpUg_IU

2. The current outbreak of Ebola is by far the largest outbreak to date and appears to be increasingly defying containment and appears to be more contagious than previously thought. It also kills over half of all people who contract the disease
See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11058052/Ebola-sufferer-William-Pooley-did-not-take-risks-while-working-with-infected-patients.html


Short and curlies is that HSE haven't been able to properly manage MRSA so it is unlikely that they would to do any better with a serious disease such as Ebola. Believe whatever 'nonsense' you wish. That's your opinion. My personal experience of potential disease control in a number of Irish hospitals is vastly different.

MRSA cases are at their lowest since records began according to the report linked earlier.

MRSA is more contagious than ebola as far as I know.

gozunda

jh79 wrote: »

MRSA cases are at their lowest since records began according to the report linked earlier.

A. MRSA is still around after some 40 years and some strains have become even more virulent

jh79 wrote: »

MRSA is more contagious than ebola as far as I know.

B. See reports posted on Ebola outbreak listed above ....

I still don't rate the HSE record for disease containment or management.

FullblownRose

Took this from the article someone posted about quack cures..this implies it's quite possble to catch ebola from a minute amount of fluid, a trace of it in a drink of water, even if some of the water isnt ingested, but spilt onto a surface where someone then puts their hand and picks up a trace and wipes it on their eyes or nose.

''OK, now. I know we skeptics joke about homeopathic remedies being diluted so much that it’s unlikely that a single molecule is left. So this shouldn’t be a problem, right? After all, what a homeopath who does this should have left is just water, right? Well, I wouldn’t count on it. All it takes is for one or a few Ebola virus particles to cling to the surface of the bottle. The bigger problem, though, is this: What do you do with all the water being used to dilute the Ebola virus? The water discarded during the first few dilutions is likely to be chock full of virus, given how much virus can be found in the blood and secretions of victims. Imagine the potential for accidental self-infection or infection of others if that water deposits Ebola on surfaces where people can touch it, get it on their skin, and then, as people so frequently do, get it on their mucus membranes by either rubbing their eyes, picking their nose, or eating something by hand. It’s insanity! Also, the thought of striking a glass bottle containing Ebola virus-laced water doesn’t sound like the most brilliant plan in the world. What if the bottle breaks? Plastic’s only little better.''

jh79

FullblownRose wrote: »

Took this from the article someone posted about quack cures..this implies it's quite possble to catch ebola from a minute amount of fluid, a trace of it in a drink of water, even if some of the water isnt ingested, but spilt onto a surface where someone then puts their hand and picks up a trace and wipes it on their eyes or nose.

''OK, now. I know we skeptics joke about homeopathic remedies being diluted so much that it’s unlikely that a single molecule is left. So this shouldn’t be a problem, right? After all, what a homeopath who does this should have left is just water, right? Well, I wouldn’t count on it. All it takes is for one or a few Ebola virus particles to cling to the surface of the bottle. The bigger problem, though, is this: What do you do with all the water being used to dilute the Ebola virus? The water discarded during the first few dilutions is likely to be chock full of virus, given how much virus can be found in the blood and secretions of victims. Imagine the potential for accidental self-infection or infection of others if that water deposits Ebola on surfaces where people can touch it, get it on their skin, and then, as people so frequently do, get it on their mucus membranes by either rubbing their eyes, picking their nose, or eating something by hand. It’s insanity! Also, the thought of striking a glass bottle containing Ebola virus-laced water doesn’t sound like the most brilliant plan in the world. What if the bottle breaks? Plastic’s only little better.''

It is not suggesting that a tiny amount would be enough just that process of diluting it would be extremely risky for the homeopath.

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

It is not suggesting that a tiny amount would be enough just that process of diluting it would be extremely risky for the homeopath.

If the homeoath is dealing with a tiny amount it must then be risky? Why mention the spillage on the surface, though?

jh79

FullblownRose wrote: »

If the homeoath is dealing with a tiny amount it must then be risky? Why mention the spillage on the surface, though?

As risky as any virus i suppose,

Would you trust a homeopath with a deadly virus in an office beside a health food shop?

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

As risky as any virus i suppose,

Would you trust a homeopath with a deadly virus in an office beside a health food shop?

I haven't made my point very clearly.It's been repeatedly stated that Ebola is *not* as risky as most viruses because it isn't as contagious. There's precious little information about how it is transmitted and how long it remains dangerous when the fluid such as mucus is expelled onto surfaces.
The comment about the danger of spillage makes me wonder how long the virus is dangerous in any bodily fluid expelled onto a surface or person.

I don't know whether I'd trust the homepoath experimenting with the virus- for one thing, if it is difficult to catch except by direct contact with vomit, semen, blood or sweat then why should it be a concern what the homeopath tries?

I'm nt trying to be smart so to speak...

jh79

FullblownRose wrote: »

I haven't made my point very clearly.It's been repeatedly stated that Ebola is *not* as risky as most viruses because it isn't as contagious. There's precious little information about how it is transmitted and how long it remains dangerous when the fluid such as mucus is expelled onto surfaces.
The comment about the danger of spillage makes me wonder how long the virus is dangerous in any bodily fluid expelled onto a surface or person.

I don't know whether I'd trust the homepoath experimenting with the virus- for one thing, if it is difficult to catch except by direct contact with vomit, semen, blood or sweat then why should it be a concern what the homeopath tries?

I'm nt trying to be smart so to speak...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

It is dangerous for homeopath s to handle because they are not trained to handle anything more dangerous than water and a container.

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

It is dangerous for homeopath s to handle because they are not trained to handle anything more dangerous than water and a container.

Irrespective of what theyre trained to handle, the issue is how dangerous is it in that form, diluted in water, because if its dangerous for them its dangerous for anyne coming into contact with it in the same form.

jh79

FullblownRose wrote: »

Irrespective of what theyre trained to handle, the issue is how dangerous is it in that form, diluted in water, because if its dangerous for them its dangerous for anyne coming into contact with it in the same form.

Is anyone disputing this? But why would you be handling ebola contaminated water?

enno99

stuff.hunter wrote: »

here you go, folks...
a priest which came back from Africa died in Spain.... ebola virus reached Europe

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29514920

The Spanish health minister has confirmed that a nurse who treated a victim of Ebola in Madrid has tested positive for the disease.

The nurse is said to be the first person in the current outbreak known to have contracted Ebola outside Africa.

The Spanish nurse is in a stable condition, Reuters quoted health officials as saying. She started to feel ill last week when she was on holiday

So a nurse has been infected with Ebola despite wearing protection and knowing what she was dealing with



picture shows the type of protection they employed

degrassinoel

"when she was on holiday" - that's the scary bit.

RichardoKhan

enno99 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29514920



So a nurse has been infected with Ebola despite wearing protection and knowing what she was dealing with



picture shows the type of protection they employed

Up to now I thought we'd manage this ok in Europe given treatment & sanitary conditions. This is a very worrying development. Anyone any info as to how the nurse caught this IE did she disregard protocols etc or is it more likely we are no tbeing told the full truth regards how it spreads.
Terrible for the nurse & her family BUT I really do hope that she admits to breaking protocol or it lapsed/compromised somehow.....

enno99

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Up to now I thought we'd manage this ok in Europe given treatment & sanitary conditions. This is a very worrying development. Anyone any info as to how the nurse caught this IE did she disregard protocols etc or is it more likely [we are no tbeing told the full truth regards how it spreads.
Terrible for the nurse & her family BUT I really do hope that she admits to breaking protocol or it lapsed/compromised somehow.....

Good question

I doubt she would have been cavalier while treating a Ebola victim but you cant be 100% sure

RichardoKhan

enno99 wrote: »

Good question

I doubt she would have been cavalier while treating a Ebola victim but you cant be 100% sure

Hence my statement that this is a VERY worrying development. Potentially if no adequate explanation can be found then you are slowly but surely drawn to the conclusion this could be airborne or similar. IF that is the case then well I dont want to dwell unnecessarily but anyone with half a brain can work out the rest....

jh79

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Hence my statement that this is a VERY worrying development. Potentially if no adequate explanation can be found then you are slowly but surely drawn to the conclusion this could be airborne or similar. IF that is the case then well I dont want to dwell unnecessarily but anyone with half a brain can work out the rest....

A more likely explanation is than she made a mistake somewhere along the line.

enno99

jh79 wrote: »

A more likely explanation is than she made a mistake somewhere along the line.

Reading on another site that she had only contact twice with the patient
once when he was alive and she was disposing his belongings
also that she had fever like symptoms from sept 30th
So she was walking around for 5or6 days before being hospitalized

enno99

jh79 wrote: »

A more likely explanation is than she made a mistake somewhere along the line.

The same staff members who, like the infected woman, worked in shifts to look after García Viejo also expressed their astonishment at the woman’s infection given the “extreme” protection measures in place. They dressed in two sets of overalls, two pairs of gloves and goggles while treating the patient.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/06/inenglish/1412617661_022515.html

She also treated the other Ebola victim earlier

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

The same staff members who, like the infected woman, worked in shifts to look after García Viejo also expressed their astonishment at the woman’s infection given the “extreme” protection measures in place. They dressed in two sets of overalls, two pairs of gloves and goggles while treating the patient.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/06/inenglish/1412617661_022515.html

She also treated the other Ebola victim earlier

So what are the alternate, conspiracy explanations for this?

Was she infected deliberately?
Is it not ebola, or not the type of ebola they are saying?
Is it all faked?

Why is a lapse or a mistake not a valid explanation?

euroboom13

The theory is simple
As peoples fear grows so does the problem.
Reduce the fear reduce the problem.

Question is who`s driving the fear and why?

degrassinoel

i'd say a 70% lethality rate virus that has a horrific way of ending one's life is fear enough to drive anyone despite any media intervention

euroboom13

Why is it being handled like a b-movie rather than cia/m15 special ops?

Do you believe we are that incompetent?

If I was watching this in the cinema I would be shouting at the screen at the start and walked out by now.

It needs a better script I`m afraid, I can`t believe we are that Daft, but maybe most people are?

degrassinoel

euroboom13 wrote: »

Why is it being handled like a b-movie rather than cia/m15 special ops?

Who is handling it like a b-movie?

I havent seen 'Outbreak' in years, but i rather enjoyed it at the time.

jh79

degrassinoel wrote: »

Who is handling it like a b-movie?

I havent seen 'Outbreak' in years, but i rather enjoyed it at the time.

There is an actual b-movie from Hong Kong called "the Ebola Syndrome".

degrassinoel

awesome, i'll look that one up

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

Is anyone disputing this? But why would you be handling ebola contaminated water?

Nobody on this thread, but I think some people downplay it a bit. Any handling would be unintentional but surely could happen without the person knowing.

King Mob

euroboom13 wrote: »

Why is it being handled like a b-movie rather than cia/m15 special ops?

Do you believe we are that incompetent?

If I was watching this in the cinema I would be shouting at the screen at the start and walked out by now.

It needs a better script I`m afraid, I can`t believe we are that Daft, but maybe most people are?

What leads you to believe that it's being handled like a b-movie?
The reports in the media?

If they are trying to trick you, why do you also believe that they are being so obvious? Do you believe that they are being deliberately obvious, or that they are incompetent or do they simply not care?

It looks to me that there's no actual theory here at all and that it's just people trying to find something, anything the slightest bit suspicious to them so they can say it's a conspiracy.

euroboom13

King Mob wrote: »

What leads you to believe that it's being handled like a b-movie?
The reports in the media?

If they are trying to trick you, why do you also believe that they are being so obvious? Do you believe that they are being deliberately obvious, or that they are incompetent or do they simply not care?

It looks to me that there's no actual theory here at all and that it's just people trying to find something, anything the slightest bit suspicious to them so they can say it's a conspiracy.

Yes, your probably right , its just following the natural path of a pandemic.
With media hot at its heels.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

It looks to me that there's no actual theory here at all and that it's just people trying to find something, anything the slightest bit suspicious to them so they can say it's a conspiracy.

Do you believe that the CDC/ WHO and others have handled this effectively

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Do you believe that the CDC/ WHO and others have handled this effectively

I don't know, there could have well been lapses in protocol or perhaps they have not been as careful as perfectly possible.

But even if they were perfectly careful, there is still chances of infection, so the one instance isn't impossible.
No one has pointed out anything to show that CDC, WHO and others have not handled this as effectively as possible.

So again, what are you proposing as the reason why this person was infected and how is it a conspiracy?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know, there could have well been lapses in protocol or perhaps they have not been as careful as perfectly possible.

But even if they were perfectly careful, there is still chances of infection, so the one instance isn't impossible.
No one has pointed out anything to show that CDC, WHO and others have not handled this as effectively as possible.

So again, what are you proposing as the reason why this person was infected and how is it a conspiracy?

Do you think it would be more effective to contain the infected people where they are


Norwegian health worker infected by ebola virus

A Norwegian woman working for Doctors without Borders in Sierra Leone has been infected by the ebola virus. She is being brought to Norway by an emergency ambulance plane.



She is expected to arrive in Oslo Tuesday morning.

She will be treated in isolation at the Oslo University Hospital.

(NRK)

(To be further updated Tuesday)


http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php/news/latest-news/30208



Ebola outbreak: Second patient arrives in Germany

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29473623


Ebola Now Has 50% Chance Of Reaching UK Within 3 Weeks, Scientists Warn

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/06/ebola-uk-outbreak-_n_5937682.html


Given that they dont know how the Spanish nurse became infected do you think it was prudent if them to ship another infected person to Norway

euroboom13

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know, there could have well been lapses in protocol or perhaps they have not been as careful as perfectly possible.

But even if they were perfectly careful, there is still chances of infection, so the one instance isn't impossible.
No one has pointed out anything to show that CDC, WHO and others have not handled this as effectively as possible.

So again, what are you proposing as the reason why this person was infected and how is it a conspiracy?

If we have protocol ,why is this lunacy happening?
Its not a simple slip of protocol.
Its lunacy.
Its waving the bogeyman around, that's how I see it?
Why?
Feed fear, restricted freedom

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/obama-ready-ramp-ebola-airport-screening-n219811

And even with the obvious being pointed out,it will be ridiculed ,by prisisoners defending the prison.

Pay attention and guess the intention!

enno99

Dallas Ebola victim's stepdaughter - who took him to hospital as he was 'vomiting wildly' - is given all clear to return to work as a NURSING ASSISTANT



Ms Jallah whose contact with Mr Duncan - who remains in a critical condition - was far more intimate and prolonged than that of her husband, told MailOnline on Monday: 'The CDC came yesterday. They said I can go back to work but I do not know what I will do. I will not go back yet.'

Doctors say that no-one is at risk of catching the virus unless they come into contact with a sufferer who is exhibiting symptoms.

But it is unlikely that Youngor will return to work until the family have gone through the 21 days considered the latest time between exposure and manifestation of Ebola.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782694/Ebola-victim-s-stepdaughter-took-hospital-vomiting-wildly-given-clear-return-work-nursing-assitant.html

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Do you think it would be more effective to contain the infected people where they are

Given that they dont know how the Spanish nurse became infected do you think it was prudent if them to ship another infected person to Norway

I don't know. I'm not a doctor or an expert in infectious diseases. I don't know the protocols or the procedures they need to follow. I don;t know what facilities and supplies are best suited to treat some one.

You don't know these things either as you are also not a doctor or expert in infectious diseases.

Both your opinion and mine on what is prudent based on what we read in a undetailed news report is not reliable or sound.

So can you offer an alternative explanation for why they shipped this person to Norway?

euroboom13 wrote: »

If we have protocol ,why is this lunacy happening?
Its not a simple slip of protocol.
Its lunacy.

Because accidents happen and people aren't perfect.

How do you know that it isn't just a slip?

euroboom13 wrote: »

Its waving the bogeyman around, that's how I see it?
Why?
Feed fear, restricted freedom

So if their intention is to spread the virus to spread fear, why have they tried any controls on it at all?
Why hospitalise and quarantine this person?
Why let the story run when they could have just let him quietly infect people then use the much more serious outbreak for their evil purposes?

euroboom13

"So if their intention is to spread the virus to spread fear, why have they tried any controls on it at all?
Why hospitalise and quarantine this person"

The virus is spreading naturally through fear.
Fear is the problem, that's why it is wrong to spread fear.
If you understand fear.

King Mob

euroboom13 wrote: »

The virus is spreading naturally through fear.
Fear is the problem, that's why it is wrong to spread fear.
If you understand fear.

I'm sorry I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that their intention is to actually spread the virus?
Or is it their intention to simply fear monger about the virus?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not a doctor or an expert in infectious diseases. I don't know the protocols or the procedures they need to follow. I don;t know what facilities and supplies are best suited to treat some one.

You don't know these things either as you are also not a doctor or expert in infectious diseases.

Both your opinion and mine on what is prudent based on what we read in a undetailed news report is not reliable or sound.

No FDA-approved vaccine or medicine (e.g., antiviral drug) is available for Ebola.

Symptoms of Ebola are treated as they appear. The following basic interventions, when used early, can significantly improve the chances of survival:

Providing intravenous fluids (IV)and balancing electrolytes (body salts)
Maintaining oxygen status and blood pressure
Treating other infections if they occur

Experimental vaccines and treatments for Ebola are under development, but they have not yet been fully tested for safety or effectiveness.

Recovery from Ebola depends on good supportive care and the patient’s immune response. People who recover from Ebola infection develop antibodies that last for at least 10 years, possibly longer. It isn't known if people who recover are immune for life or if they can become infected with a different species of Ebola. Some people who have recovered from Ebola have developed long-term complications, such as joint and vision problems.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/index.html

Dont see anything here that cant be administered at the place of infection

Surely setting up a couple of field hospitals and providing the nessacary equipment and personel would be more effective at containing the outbreak than flying prople all over the world

Would you agree ?


I dont want a medical opinion here a common sense one would be adequate

Torakx

I had a quick search for tests of Alacin(from garlic) on ebola, but couldn't find much.
I searched garlic and there are a few hits. If anyone sees any studies with garlic I'd love to see them.

FullblownRose

Torakx wrote: »

I had a quick search for tests of Alacin(from garlic) on ebola, but couldn't find much.
I searched garlic and there are a few hits. If anyone sees any studies with garlic I'd love to see them.

Has someone suggested trying that? Garlic is meant to be a good antiviral. No idea about Ebola, though.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Dont see anything here that cant be administered at the place of infection

enno99 wrote: »

Symptoms of Ebola are treated as they appear. The following basic interventions, when used early, can significantly improve the chances of survival:

Providing intravenous fluids (IV)and balancing electrolytes (body salts)
Maintaining oxygen status and blood pressure
Treating other infections if they occur

These things can be more easily provided in a hospital with steady supplies, steady power, running clean water and with less overrun and over worked staff.

Also, you are less likely to get volunteers to travel to infected places so the personnel might not be available.

Moving a person might be more cost effective than moving more personnel and equipment.

Moving a person in a secure transport to a facility that is more secure and in a place where the spread of the virus is less of a danger due to improve facilities and sanitation might be less risky than sending more people into a dangerous area.

It could be a combination of these and other things.

enno99 wrote: »

Surely setting up a couple of field hospitals and providing the nessacary equipment and personel would be more effective at containing the outbreak than flying prople all over the world

Would you agree ?

No. Because I'm not a doctor or an expert in infectious diseases.

enno99 wrote: »

I dont want a medical opinion here a common sense one would be adequate

Again, you are not a doctor so there could be well be factors that you are not aware of that could effect the situation.
What you think is common sense might not actually be good medical sense.

Your suspicion is based on the idea that your common sense is as valid and as informed as the opinion of trained experts.

So again, could you please explain the conspiracy theory you are suggesting?
Why do you think they are making bad decisions?

enno99

(CNN) -- After an in-person briefing from the staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, President Barack Obama on Tuesday announced a "major increase" in the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

The United States will send troops, material to build field hospitals, additional health care workers, community care kits and badly needed medical supplies.

Countless taxis filled with families worried they've become infected with Ebola currently crisscross Monrovia in search of help.


"We can't dawdle on this one. We have to move with force and make sure that we are catching this as best we can, given that it has already broken out in ways that we have not seen before."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/16/health/obama-ebola/index.html

Good to see all that money and medical training for these experts didnt go to waste:rolleyes:

One thing is for certain these dickheads have spread this around the planet
whether intentional or unintentional remains to be seen

euroboom13

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that their intention is to actually spread the virus?
Or is it their intention to simply fear monger about the virus?

My point is that media understand the power of fear, you don't, if you did you would see the point of publicity.

Like the Higgs boson ,the observer effects results.

King Mob

euroboom13 wrote: »

My point is that media understand the power of fear, you don't, if you did you would see the point of publicity.

Like the Higgs boson ,the observer effects results.

I don't understand because you are being unnecessarily cryptic.

Are you suggesting that the virus would spread more if people are more fearful of it?