ebola, anyone else mildly terrified?

[otolith]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would it be any less of a threat in 'first world' countries than in Africa.

Because a developed country should have the equipment and training to treat a case without risk to staff - thought that was obvious.

[tonyvid]

Sheepshanks said:

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29514920 is a bit worrying. You have to wonder if it was wise that she went on holiday within the incubation period.

Have they said where she went on holiday? That could be a lovely way to start spreading it to the 4 corners of the World!

[bosshog]

superkartracer said:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/05/uk-health...

Interesting - I actually feel slightly more reassured even though the risk is high

reuters said:

Despite being in West Africa and being home to one of the world's most crowded, chaotic cities, Nigeria has managed to contain Ebola's spread to a total of 20 cases and 8 deaths, and looks likely to be declared free of the virus in coming weeks.

[superkartracer]

Agreed , then you read this - http://www.ibtimes.com/ebola-outbreak-india-monito...

[Crusoe]

BBC saying she only treated the patient twice while he was there and wore level 2 isolation gear (facemask, goggles, double gloves taped up but no respirator or separate air supply). Should we infer that it is really air born within a short radius of effected individuals?

CDC said:

That's because the Ebola virus does not spread through the air, like the flu or a cold virus, if you sit next to someone on the bus, you're not exposed.

[otolith]

Crusoe said:

ng she only treated the patient twice while he was there and wore level 2 isolation gear (facemask, goggles, double gloves taped up but no respirator or separate air supply). Should we infer that it is really air born within a short radius of effected individuals?

It's a worrying development if that's how it was caught. It can be spread by the inhalation of large droplets, but that's not true airborne transmission and a facemask should be adequate protection. I would be more inclined to think she got sloppy - but on the other hand, the staff at the hospital have been complaining to the media that their protective clothing was substandard.

[durbster]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would it be any less of a threat in 'first world' countries than in Africa.The fact that we haven't quarantined Africa by cutting all travel links is a suicidal policy.

Your view of the world is consistently entertaining XJ.

How exactly would you quarantine a continent consisting of 54 countries and over a billion people?

I'd particularly love to explain how we would tell the Chinese in particular that they should stop their African expansion.

[bosshog]

superkartracer said:

Agreed , then you read this - http://www.ibtimes.com/ebola-outbreak-india-monito...

But lets not beat about the bush - Ebola is going to get everywhere is most countries within a year or 2, there's no way its getting or will be contained in Africa. For me its now a question of how well each country can cope with cases that WILL pop up.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Crusoe said:

BBC saying she only treated the patient twice while he was there and wore level 2 isolation gear (facemask, goggles, double gloves taped up but no respirator or separate air supply). Should we infer that it is really air born within a short radius of effected individuals?

CDC said:

That's because the Ebola virus does not spread through the air, like the flu or a cold virus, if you sit next to someone on the bus, you're not exposed.

Ebola has spread in lab tests where no direct contact was believed/supposed to have occurred.

"Airborne and droplet transmission both technically travel through the air to infect others; the difference lies in the size of the infective particles. Smaller droplets persist in the air longer and are able to travel farther - these droplets are truly “airborne.” Larger droplets can neither travel as far nor persist for very long. Fomites are inanimate objects that can transmit disease if they are contaminated with infectious agents. In this study, a monkey’s cage could have been contaminated when workers were cleaning a nearby pig cage. If the monkey touched the contaminated cage surface and then its mouth or eyes, it could have been infected."

In the future, we will also have to recognise that there are sufficient nutters in the world, that sooner or later, some will deliberately try to infect themselves and others.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Tuesday 7th October 10:47

[neenaw]

bosshog said:

But lets not beat about the bush - Ebola is going to get everywhere is most countries within a year or 2, there's no way its getting or will be contained in Africa. For me its now a question of how well each country can cope with cases that WILL pop up.

My personal opinion is that health services in the UK won't be able to cope very well at all with ebola. I'd go as far as to say that it's almost a certainty that we'll end up with cases coming in through our airports or other ports as we appear to be woefully unprepared for it.

[bosshog]

neenaw said:

My personal opinion is that health services in the UK won't be able to cope very well at all with ebola. I'd go as far as to say that it's almost a certainty that we'll end up with cases coming in through our airports or other ports as we appear to be woefully unprepared for it.

Yes unfortunately I think you are right. What can you do though?

Actually - who knows. It really is down to how infectious it is and how often front line workers get infected.

Edited by bosshog on Tuesday 7th October 11:26

[Lost soul]

dudleybloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

The fact that we haven't quarantined Africa by cutting all travel links is a suicidal policy.

i agree.
we will all suffer because of politically correct do-gooders.

you can imagine how the human rights hand wringers would react if this were to be suggested

[MrBaker]

bosshog said:

neenaw said:

My personal opinion is that health services in the UK won't be able to cope very well at all with ebola. I'd go as far as to say that it's almost a certainty that we'll end up with cases coming in through our airports or other ports as we appear to be woefully unprepared for it.

Yes unfortunately I think you are right. What can you do though?

Actually - who knows. It really is down to how infectious it is and how often front line workers get infected.

Edited by bosshog on Tuesday 7th October 11:26

My OH informs me that there are wards in hosptials set aside for this already, and some of them have been on training to deal with it

[neenaw]

MrBaker said:

My OH informs me that there are wards in hosptials set aside for this already, and some of them have been on training to deal with it

I can only speak about London but there's only one ward, as far as I'm aware, that can deal with confirmed ebola patients and they have very few beds.
My concern would be the people arriving through the airports who are infectious and risk spreading the disease. It's all well and good screening passengers who have arrived direct from Africa but there doesn't seem to be much thought about passengers who have travelled from Africa via another destination before arriving here in the UK.

[MrBaker]

neenaw said:

MrBaker said:

My OH informs me that there are wards in hosptials set aside for this already, and some of them have been on training to deal with it

I can only speak about London but there's only one ward, as far as I'm aware, that can deal with confirmed ebola patients and they have very few beds.
My concern would be the people arriving through the airports who are infectious and risk spreading the disease. It's all well and good screening passengers who have arrived direct from Africa but there doesn't seem to be much thought about passengers who have travelled from Africa via another destination before arriving here in the UK.

From what she was saying there are 3 wards , or parts of wards, for this in 3 different Hospitals in Kent that she was told about. How big, equipped etc they are I've no idea.

She could have been passing on NHS gossip for all I know

[benjj]

Nothing to back this up (as I know PH likes) but a good friend of mine who is a senior anaesthetist at a large London hospital says they already have 'several' suspected ebola cases at his place and he thinks there are likely many more across the capital.

[XJ Flyer]

otolith said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would it be any less of a threat in 'first world' countries than in Africa.

Because a developed country should have the equipment and training to treat a case without risk to staff - thought that was obvious.

There's 'obviously' no reasons why the disease should be thought of presenting 'less risk' to the population here than there is there.The idea of continuous links between here and there can only produce the downside of transferring the issue globally instead of keeping it there and goes against all common sense in the face of a disease that needs strict quarantine not spread by continuous travel links to the outside world.

[otolith]

You seem to have read more into "medics in first world countries shouldn't be catching it" than was written. It was a simple statement about the ability of well equipped and well trained staff to treat an Ebola case without putting themselves at risk, not a comment on immigration, quarantine or leaving Africa to rot.

[XJ Flyer]

durbster said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would it be any less of a threat in 'first world' countries than in Africa.The fact that we haven't quarantined Africa by cutting all travel links is a suicidal policy.

Your view of the world is consistently entertaining XJ.

How exactly would you quarantine a continent consisting of 54 countries and over a billion people?

I'd particularly love to explain how we would tell the Chinese in particular that they should stop their African expansion.

So you'd prefer the idea of exposing the populations in the outside world to the disease rather than lock down the place where it originates.

[AstonZagato]

On the news last night, there was an article about an infected patient turning up at one of the African treatment centres. He was in a car with 3 or 4 of his family. They turned him away because they were full. So his family drove him away, to god knows where, to infect, presumably his family who were looking after him and some other locals.

He died within a few hours, apparently.

It seems madness to turn patients away, even if there is nothing you can do for them. It will only spread the disease faster. Harsh to say but corral them in one area, even if it is just to die, isolated from people they can infect.