ebola, anyone else mildly terrified?
Discussion
Ok, so there was an expert on the TV just now saying that anyone travelling on the plane with the Ebola patient on Sunday had a negligible chance of catching the virus off the patient and should not be concerned. He said you must have bodily contact with a mucus baring part of the body. Such as the eyeballs.
But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
TTmonkey said:
Ok, so there was an expert on the TV just now saying that anyone travelling on the plane with the Ebola patient on Sunday had a negligible chance of catching the virus off the patient and should not be concerned. He said you must have bodily contact with a mucus baring part of the body. Such as the eyeballs.
But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
At first glance what you say does make sense. However, if you look at it from a risk mitigation point of view what the authorities are doing is ensuring that what low risk of contamination there is, is actually mitigated to such a low level that contamination is virtually impossible, which is a good thing I'm sure you will agree?But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
I would be more worried if the authorities did nothing and bunged the poor infected person £20 and told them to get public transport to another hospital!
Terminator X said:
Surely only at risk if contact made with bodily fluids?
TX.
So you're on Sundays flight from Morroco, and you go to the toilet immediately after the woman who 36 hours later is being transported in full hazmat protection to a London hospital. She's feeling a bit unwell, and has been coughing a bit or sneezing.... or perhaps not washed her hands properly after having a crap (it's a plane remember, have you seen the hand washing facilities?). You are touching the same small door lock bolt just after she has. The same tap. The same toilet seat. 30 seconds after she did.TX.
You don't know if you've been in close contact with someone with Ebola.
sherbertdip said:
TTmonkey said:
Ok, so there was an expert on the TV just now saying that anyone travelling on the plane with the Ebola patient on Sunday had a negligible chance of catching the virus off the patient and should not be concerned. He said you must have bodily contact with a mucus baring part of the body. Such as the eyeballs.
But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
At first glance what you say does make sense. However, if you look at it from a risk mitigation point of view what the authorities are doing is ensuring that what low risk of contamination there is, is actually mitigated to such a low level that contamination is virtually impossible, which is a good thing I'm sure you will agree?But quite frankly this does not to me ring true with what they are showing on the reports. I've just watched the patient being moved ( just a day later) by people wearing full body protection, in an ambulance with 6 police car escorts, being loaded into a mobile incubator and flown in a private jet to a non public airport. The patient was transferred across the country to a specialist hospital in London.
If the expert is to believed then why exactly does this level of care need to be taken now? The patient will be no more infectious than when they sat next to other plane passengers. They haven't gone from 'harmless' to 'highly dangerous' overnight, unless everything the so called experts tell us is also false.
What's being seen doesn't match with what's being said.
I would be more worried if the authorities did nothing and bunged the poor infected person £20 and told them to get public transport to another hospital!
With all the fanfare that surrounded the decision for health workers and the Navy to go help the efforts in Africa, I took it for granted that it was being coordinated at a very high level and that health professionals would be transported in batches, by the Navy / Air force, and that the necessary quarantine period would be enforced upon their return.
Are health professionals really just left to rock up at the local airport and make their own way back?? On 3 different public flights?? Is this our contribution as a nation?
Are health professionals really just left to rock up at the local airport and make their own way back?? On 3 different public flights?? Is this our contribution as a nation?
menousername said:
With all the fanfare that surrounded the decision for health workers and the Navy to go help the efforts in Africa, I took it for granted that it was being coordinated at a very high level and that health professionals would be transported in batches, by the Navy / Air force, and that the necessary quarantine period would be enforced upon their return.
Are health professionals really just left to rock up at the local airport and make their own way back?? On 3 different public flights?? Is this our contribution as a nation?
I'm surprised they;re not making the health workers stay in quarantine for 21 days before flying back at least. Seems ludicrous given a few health workers are being infected now:Are health professionals really just left to rock up at the local airport and make their own way back?? On 3 different public flights?? Is this our contribution as a nation?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/31/worl...
[Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/25/3249412...
and http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publicat... ]
"In 1996, a Gabon man with clear symptoms of Ebola boarded a plane to Johannesburg to seek medical treatment. He had a fever above 105 degrees Fahrenheit and signs of internal bleeding.
The man eventually made it to a hospital in South Africa. He did not infect anyone during his flight or other travels, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported."
"In 2004, a businessman visiting Sierra Leone flew to London and then the U.S. He had a fever, diarrhea and back pain. When he reached his hometown in New Jersey, he went straight to a hospital.
The diagnosis was Lassa fever — another hemorrhagic virus that, like Ebola, is transmitted through bodily contact. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked down 188 people who had close contact with the man during his travels, including 19 passengers on the flight from London to Newark. The CDC reported that none of them caught the virus."
and http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publicat... ]
"In 1996, a Gabon man with clear symptoms of Ebola boarded a plane to Johannesburg to seek medical treatment. He had a fever above 105 degrees Fahrenheit and signs of internal bleeding.
The man eventually made it to a hospital in South Africa. He did not infect anyone during his flight or other travels, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported."
"In 2004, a businessman visiting Sierra Leone flew to London and then the U.S. He had a fever, diarrhea and back pain. When he reached his hometown in New Jersey, he went straight to a hospital.
The diagnosis was Lassa fever — another hemorrhagic virus that, like Ebola, is transmitted through bodily contact. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked down 188 people who had close contact with the man during his travels, including 19 passengers on the flight from London to Newark. The CDC reported that none of them caught the virus."
See that's another health worker up in the highlands who has fallen ill with suspected Ebola but not confirmed, Claims came into no contact with anyone infected and is a low risk.
Why they aren't making all aid workers stay in a quarantined hotel or something (i.e. have the govt buy out a building)as there are a few more of these cases happening. It doesn't takle much to make it get bad quickly, though I relaise in the west we are a lot safer even if people do get infected. Still seems like trying to close door after horse has bolted approach.
Why they aren't making all aid workers stay in a quarantined hotel or something (i.e. have the govt buy out a building)as there are a few more of these cases happening. It doesn't takle much to make it get bad quickly, though I relaise in the west we are a lot safer even if people do get infected. Still seems like trying to close door after horse has bolted approach.
Rather than allowing every wannabe hero to pop out to an infection zone for a couple of weeks holiday, then return exposing us all to an increased risk of infection (however tiny that increase may be), would it not be sensible to band volunteers from going and simply send as aid a group of people for up to a year at a time and quarantine them all upon return?
I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
LucreLout said:
Rather than allowing every wannabe hero to pop out to an infection zone for a couple of weeks holiday, then return exposing us all to an increased risk of infection (however tiny that increase may be), would it not be sensible to band volunteers from going and simply send as aid a group of people for up to a year at a time and quarantine them all upon return?
I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
"wannabe hero", "feel good factor" & "cv boost" - really? This place never ceases to amaze me....I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
GnuBee said:
LucreLout said:
Rather than allowing every wannabe hero to pop out to an infection zone for a couple of weeks holiday, then return exposing us all to an increased risk of infection (however tiny that increase may be), would it not be sensible to band volunteers from going and simply send as aid a group of people for up to a year at a time and quarantine them all upon return?
I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
"wannabe hero", "feel good factor" & "cv boost" - really? This place never ceases to amaze me....I get that as a nurse you want the feel good factor of helping out and the cv boost of having done so, but its simply not worth the risk of you bringing Ebola back here.
Given the short timespan between return and becoming symptomatic, I'd have to echo the previous posters query as to how ill this nurse felt or if she had reason to suspect possible infection prior to returning, which would be unacceptable.
cptsideways said:
It's highly likely others on that plane were returning from active participation in medical assistance in infected areas one would assume.
There is a big contingent of health workers out there now. My bet is a number of people on that plane could be effected.
Sky News have just interviewed a Doctor who was also on the plane. He claims that there were quite a few people on board who had been out there and that they were moving around on the aircraft talking to each other. There is a big contingent of health workers out there now. My bet is a number of people on that plane could be effected.
He also claims that it's unlikely that she contracted Ebola in the treatment centre but more likely that it was in the local community as they were allowed to wander into town or go for jogs!
MonkeyHanger said:
Sky News have just interviewed a Doctor who was also on the plane. He claims that there were quite a few people on board who had been out there and that they were moving around on the aircraft talking to each other.
He also claims that it's unlikely that she contracted Ebola in the treatment centre but more likely that it was in the local community as they were allowed to wander into town or go for jogs!
Interesting. For a disease that's supposedly almost impossible to catch unless your licking some dying persons eyeballs, I'd have thought going out for a jog would be less than hazardous......He also claims that it's unlikely that she contracted Ebola in the treatment centre but more likely that it was in the local community as they were allowed to wander into town or go for jogs!
It's hard to catch if you follow all the rules/regs and have the right gear etc.
But trained/professional humans are failing to do that at ALL times as already shown.
They really need to start quarantining people for 21 days AFTER they leave these zones. If they don't like that, then don't go.
Hard to pass around, relatively speaking. But in a high pop density with lots of sharing of spaces, and low expectation of having to worry about Ebola, the panic driven irrationality of just a few cases in the UK could be pretty bad.
Part of me thinks the West *wants* Ebola to spread in the USA/Europe... it's the only explanation for letting people knowingly go there, get exposed, then come back with an infection.
Dave
But trained/professional humans are failing to do that at ALL times as already shown.
They really need to start quarantining people for 21 days AFTER they leave these zones. If they don't like that, then don't go.
Hard to pass around, relatively speaking. But in a high pop density with lots of sharing of spaces, and low expectation of having to worry about Ebola, the panic driven irrationality of just a few cases in the UK could be pretty bad.
Part of me thinks the West *wants* Ebola to spread in the USA/Europe... it's the only explanation for letting people knowingly go there, get exposed, then come back with an infection.
Dave
TTmonkey said:
Terminator X said:
Surely only at risk if contact made with bodily fluids?
TX.
So you're on Sundays flight from Morroco, and you go to the toilet immediately after the woman who 36 hours later is being transported in full hazmat protection to a London hospital. She's feeling a bit unwell, and has been coughing a bit or sneezing.... or perhaps not washed her hands properly after having a crap (it's a plane remember, have you seen the hand washing facilities?). You are touching the same small door lock bolt just after she has. The same tap. The same toilet seat. 30 seconds after she did.TX.
You don't know if you've been in close contact with someone with Ebola.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff