ebola, anyone else mildly terrified?

[Jimbeaux]

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

XJ Flyer said:

Mr Whippy said:

XJ Flyer said:

We wouldn't allow such movement in the case of foot and mouth hotspots in farm livestock so why is it ok in the case of Ebola in people .Perceived financial issues seems to be the driving force in either case.

The FMD is an interesting compare.

Many moons ago I ended up putting a map together with appropriate data for that one, with the appropriate zone sizes etc, and from the initial case to the last, the spread and count didn't seem impeded until it'd covered Cumbria and a bit further. It looked just like that scary map in 'Outbreak' where it just arithmetically expands and covers North America.

Individually we're smart, but politicians and groups are tremendously thick and it seems like it's safer logic to respond to what you see, not what could be and most likely will be expected a few weeks or months down the line.

OK it's risky to jump the gun, but conversely if you don't get ahead when you have the chance you'll never have control of it.


Tough decisions all round, but if it does start to get out and about then there won't be much we'll do to really stop it. Maybe slow the rate it does it, but it'll get around.

I think the smoking gun that shows that it can only be a case of criminal negligence or deliberate spread of the disease on the part of the US and European governments is obvious.Simply by asking the inconvenient question as to the inconsistency in movement restrictions to/from the infected areas being seen as an essential part of stopping foot and mouth disease spread in animals.But obviously not Ebola in the case of people.

I can get behind overly PC officials and pure stupidity causing some problems; however, this notion you have of deliberate spreading has me searching for you a 50% off coupon at the Mentalist facility. Let's be serious please.

The relevant bit being criminal negligence.The idea of deliberate spread ' would be' the only possible logical answer 'assuming it isn't' the former.So which is it being that there is no third option.

Negligence certainly, but deliberate? Come on.

Criminal negligence in this case.In which case that is just a very fine line between that and deliberate anyway.

A fine line? Surely that would depend soley on motive.

[otolith]

The government is trying to balance the risks and costs of each option, and taking expert advice. They may get it wrong. They may not.

[bosshog]

otolith said:

They may get it wrong. They may not.

..praying its the second...

Thing is, as something as deadly as this, surely cost of doing more now outweighs the cost/risk even if nothing too bad comes of it. If they get it wrong it will be total disaster for the Uk and world at large. Its seems such a no brainer for me. I know they spent god knows what on the vaccines for swine flu, which didn't mount to much, but what if it did - they would have save 100,000 of lives. With something as deadly as this I don't get it.

[XJ Flyer]

Jimbeaux said:

XJ Flyer said:

Criminal negligence in this case.In which case that is just a very fine line between that and deliberate anyway.

A fine line? Surely that would depend soley on motive.

The motive seems clear enough so far to be all about money and/or bleeding heart PC liberal policies.IE some say that there is more money to be lost by closing the doors while others say that it would show bad faith to the poor Africans who can't sort out their own problems.In which case the inference being that we should allow them the freedom to come here to seek our supposedly better health capabilities in dealing with their disease.

While in the case of farm livestock there seems to be more money to be lost by not isolating foot and mouth by imposing travel restrictions which are known to be an essential part of stopping the spread of highly infectious/high mortality diseases.

So not motive because we already probably know that.The fine line in question is actually all about the definition of 'criminal' in that case.

[otolith]

They won't start closing transport links unless they feel they really have to. Bad for business.

[turbobloke]

bosshog said:

otolith said:

They may get it wrong. They may not.

..praying its the second...

Thing is, as something as deadly as this, surely cost of doing more now outweighs the cost/risk even if nothing too bad comes of it. If they get it wrong it will be total disaster for the Uk and world at large. Its seems such a no brainer for me. I know they spent god knows what on the vaccines for swine flu, which didn't mount to much, but what if it did - they would have save 100,000 of lives. With something as deadly as this I don't get it.

Given that successive 'expert' scientific advisers have indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of vulnerable UK residents already due to the UK's nonsensical energy policy increasing the cost of energy for fairytale reasons, there's no basis for believing they should perform any better with a virus particularly bearing in mind what's happened with FMD in the past. Incompetence in national advisory posts such as chief scientist is rife, because the essence of these posts is political.

[XJ Flyer]

otolith said:

They won't start closing transport links unless they feel they really have to. Bad for business.

So it comes down to a trade off between potential loss of money v potential loss of life amongst the US and European public.In general the Americans at least don't like any policy which trades lives for treasure.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

Given that successive 'expert' scientific advisers have indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of vulnerable UK residents already due to the UK's nonsensical energy policy increasing the cost of energy for fairytale reasons, there's no basis for believing they should perform any better with a virus particularly bearing in mind what's happened with FMD in the past.

The difference in the case of foot and mouth being that they don't generally add to the risks of spread by not imposing travel restrictions on the affected areas.

[plasticpig]

Some businesses have already decided it's too risky on their own. Hence BA stopping flights to Sierra Leone and other infected countries. A risk assessment would probably end up with the staff wearing PPE and the staff and unions would kick up too much about it being too dangerous.

[turbobloke]

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

Given that successive 'expert' scientific advisers have indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of vulnerable UK residents already due to the UK's nonsensical energy policy increasing the cost of energy for fairytale reasons, there's no basis for believing they should perform any better with a virus particularly bearing in mind what's happened with FMD in the past.

The difference in the case of foot and mouth being that they don't generally add to the risks of spread by not imposing travel restrictions on the affected areas.

Agreed. There are generic similarities also in what happens in extremis.

Adopting the official SNAFU position within the UK political scene means that:

-when nothing needs to be done, calamitous intervention takes place

-when urgent action is called for, people in officialdumb fanny about

[otolith]

XJ Flyer said:

otolith said:

They won't start closing transport links unless they feel they really have to. Bad for business.

So it comes down to a trade off between potential loss of money v potential loss of life amongst the US and European public.In general the Americans at least don't like any policy which trades lives for treasure.

Public safety vs corporate interests? Not so sure about that.

[Bill]

Jimbeaux said:

OK, here is where we stand. ...

That it has got beyond Mr Duncan is entirely due to the incompetence of the hospital, potentially with a side dish of CDC "computer says no" idiocy.

And yet, we're now 21 days after he was admitted having been at large with symptoms for two days previously and there have been no none nursing cases.

[Jimbeaux]

Bill said:

Jimbeaux said:

OK, here is where we stand. ...

That it has got beyond Mr Duncan is entirely due to the incompetence of the hospital, potentially with a side dish of CDC "computer says no" idiocy.

And yet, we're now 21 days after he was admitted having been at large with symptoms for two days previously and there have been no none nursing cases.

As I said, we may well be ahead of it; however, if more "Mr. Duncans" get through an airport, we may start all over again.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

XJ Flyer said:

otolith said:

They won't start closing transport links unless they feel they really have to. Bad for business.

So it comes down to a trade off between potential loss of money v potential loss of life amongst the US and European public.In general the Americans at least don't like any policy which trades lives for treasure.

Public safety vs corporate interests? Not so sure about that.

Agreed. The fear of political failure in high visibility high risk scenarios is malodorous and highly contagious, with various unpleasant symptoms that affect other people.

[Bill]

Jimbeaux said:

As I said, we may well be ahead of it; however, if more "Mr. Duncans" get through an airport, we may start all over again.

I have no doubt some will, but as Duncan's case shows it won't expand into an outbreak in the west.

[ikarl]

Just heard about a cruise ship being held offshore around Belize because there's a guy onboard that handled the test samples in the lab from the American fella.

[arguti]

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

Given that successive 'expert' scientific advisers have indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of vulnerable UK residents already due to the UK's nonsensical energy policy increasing the cost of energy for fairytale reasons, there's no basis for believing they should perform any better with a virus particularly bearing in mind what's happened with FMD in the past.

The difference in the case of foot and mouth being that they don't generally add to the risks of spread by not imposing travel restrictions on the affected areas.

I always found it ironic that the steps taken to reduce the risk of BSE - closing all the small abattoirs (seen as high risk) and sending everything to the quality controlled regional "super-abattoirs" was instrumental in helping foot and mouth spread very rapidly by massively increasing animal movements. you cant have it both ways.

From an NHS perspective, the costs of having sufficient resources (from construction of adequate facilities, equipment procurement and staff training)to handle a substantial outbreak is mind boggling -without military backup I can't see it happening in the short term.

[otolith]

The military must have more people trained and equipped to work safely in a hot environment than anyone else.

[Jimbeaux]

Bill said:

Jimbeaux said:

As I said, we may well be ahead of it; however, if more "Mr. Duncans" get through an airport, we may start all over again.

I have no doubt some will, but as Duncan's case shows it won't expand into an outbreak in the west.

Likely not; however, if they are stopped from entering the country, there will be even less of an outbreak.

[Jimbeaux]

ikarl said:

Just heard about a cruise ship being held offshore around Belize because there's a guy onboard that handled the test samples in the lab from the American fella.

Saw that yesterday. It is unlikely he has it but care is being taken. He handled them 20 days ago; therefore, he is close to being deemed safe.