PDA

View Full Version : Ebola confirmed in the UK.


Sop_Monkey
29th Dec 2014, 18:52
This guy came back from Africa yesterday being a helper in an infected area. Now at Glasgow Hospital.

Why wasn't he quarantined on arrival at LHR??!! FFS!!

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2014, 19:33
So, the patient is to be transferred to London - isn't that outwith Scotland?

Good job (?) the vote went the way it did.

Oh, and the patient is female.

tony draper
29th Dec 2014, 19:52
Probably dont even bother with the paper work now,it might offend someone or violate some human rights.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/Deaddogbay/Deaddogbay002/paperwork_zpsa0c0047e.png (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/Deaddogbay/media/Deaddogbay002/paperwork_zpsa0c0047e.png.html)

mixture
29th Dec 2014, 22:00
Ebola confirmed in the UK.

Guess that means its officially time update Shakespeare to the 21st century....

"A Ebola o' both your houses! Iam sped." said Mercurtio

Well, this is Jet Blast..... :E

AeroSpark
29th Dec 2014, 23:01
:yuk:
I've just finished a very interesting/scary book about Ebola and the other various filoviruses one can contract. Not nice reading :uhoh:

Sop_Monkey
29th Dec 2014, 23:37
I was at Kinshasa in the mid '90's. Cases of Ebola was only 100 miles away and nobody gave a rat's a***e then because it was only in Africa. WHO were slow off the mark then as they have been this time around. They have one hell of a lot to answer for, IMHO.

7,000 dead so far = 2.5, 9/11's. Can you imagine the outcry in the west if it was the case in a "civilized" country?

SpringHeeledJack
29th Dec 2014, 23:53
But what's happened in-between the outbreak(s) of a few months ago and now ? Has it been contained to such an extent that only very isolated cases make it out and back to the so-called 1st World ? They were dropping like flies only a short while ago and the outlook seemed pretty bleak.


SHJ

Fox3WheresMyBanana
30th Dec 2014, 00:17
The cdc is a convenient source for all the latest
Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/)
Or the WHO
WHO | Ebola response roadmap - Situation report (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/en/)

Dec 24th.
There have been 19 497 reported cases of Ebola virus disease, with 7588 reported deaths.
Reported case incidence is fluctuating in Guinea and decreasing in Liberia.
There are signs that the increase in incidence has slowed in Sierra Leone, although the country’s west is now experiencing the most intense transmission in the affected countries.

air pig
30th Dec 2014, 00:50
To put the number of Ebola deaths into some sort of perspective in 2012 WHO say there were approx 627,000 deaths fom malaria, then add on famine war diahorroeal diseases.

The only reason this is a problem is that a, WHO screwed up again, MSF had been telling them for months that this was happening and b, it can easily reach the western world.

Sounds cruel, but 7500 people is not a big number for a continent the size of Africa, maternal deaths probably outstrip that number each week if not every couple of days.

Now you see why Bill Gates through his foundation has donated so much money to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine for its world renowned work on Malaria.

ATNotts
30th Dec 2014, 08:51
Commendable as it most certainly is that so many people from the "developed world" are willing to go the west Africa to help treat ebola patients, I can't help thinking that all of those returning ought to be quarantined on their return for the incubation period of the disease.

This needn't be in a hospital, but perhaps in a hotel, converted for the purpose, where returnees could live in comfort until we know they are not infected.

Prevention in this globalised world is better than cure.

ZH875
30th Dec 2014, 09:08
They tried that in America and the Nurse concerned sued them.....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11188874/US-nurse-sues-after-being-forced-into-quarantine-as-she-returned-from-treating-Ebola-patients-in-Sierra-Leone.html

ATNotts
30th Dec 2014, 09:43
They tried that in America and the Nurse concerned sued them.....

I think that says it all - America! If the UK government (or any other European government) passed emergency legislation to enforce quarantine then I doubt any action would succeed - unless of course (in UK) someone tried to invoke human rights legislation which UK judges seem to have a very strange interpretation of.

If we don't quarantine, then when (not if), we get cases spread through contact in "the west" the media will be screaming about why we didn't.

tony draper
30th Dec 2014, 10:00
Surely people working out there in close contact with ebola are tested before they are allowed to return in commercial transport?or in any other transport for that matter.
:uhoh:

air pig
30th Dec 2014, 10:29
ATN, the legislation already exists, you can legally prevent or restrain someone with a communicable disease leaving hospital.

tony draper
30th Dec 2014, 10:33
They stuck Typhoid Mary on a uninhabited Island for the rest of her life,we didn't piss about wi fluffiness int olden days.
:rolleyes:

ZH875
30th Dec 2014, 10:57
[quote] unless of course (in UK) someone tried to invoke human rights legislation which UK judges seem to have a very strange interpretation of.

Miss Hickox (the US Nurse) added: “I think this is an extreme that is really unacceptable. I feel like my basic human rights have been violated.”


And she is using a Human Rights Lawyer.

Watch out UK.

ExXB
30th Dec 2014, 13:21
My goodness, how many deaths are there annually from infectious diseases in the UK? And you are asking for a quarantine of health care heroes.

Yes Ebola is very infectious after symptoms occur. And care must be taken, but to lock them up is not an answer.

It's this kind of thinking that will ensure ebola is not contained to west Africa.

air pig
30th Dec 2014, 13:45
Must say RAF duty crews doing a damn good job again. Nice to see the ambulance with Royal Air Force Aero-medical Transport and a Caduceus on show.

AeroSpark
30th Dec 2014, 13:48
My goodness, how many deaths are there annually from infectious diseases in the UK? And you are asking for a quarantine of health care heroes.

Yes Ebola is very infectious after symptoms occur. And care must be taken, but to lock them up is not an answer.

Not sure I agree. This thing is nasty, really nasty. There are several different strains, some worse than others. By the death rates so far it seems that this is one of the less lethal strains, and is currently only transferable by contact with bodily fluid, but whats to stop it mutating and becoming airborne? If it gets out in a built up civilisation such as Europe or the US we, ie the human race, could be in big trouble.

ExRAFRadar
30th Dec 2014, 14:41
Have to agree with the above. I admire these people for doing what they do but the Government has a bigger responsibility.

Also if these are healthcare professionals surely they must see that a 21 day quarantine (or whatever it is) is a small price to pay for the safety of the population at large, not to mention their family.

Sop_Monkey
30th Dec 2014, 18:14
The UK public are getting a lot of conflicting information.

The health experts say there is no risk of infection from a mosquito who has bitten an Ebola victim then moves on to bit someone else. Really?? Baring in mind, a mosquito "bite" is the incursion of a hypodermic. I would like to be given proof of that, before they convince me. They haven't found a cure so they really don't know too much about it.

Bit too much theory creeping now, influencing common sense.

rgbrock1
30th Dec 2014, 18:17
Aerospark wrote:

I've just finished a very interesting/scary book about Ebola and the other various filoviruses one can contract. Not nice reading

Must make for some merry Christmas reading, eh? :}

Mr Optimistic
30th Dec 2014, 19:10
Just make them sign an agreement for quarantine: won't sign, doesn't go. Human rights arguments would have to take into account the rights of the rest of us so that wouldn't be quick by which time....

AeroSpark
30th Dec 2014, 19:11
It was that or talk to the mother in law:{

rgbrock1
30th Dec 2014, 19:18
Aerospark:

I know, I feel your pain. (Hint: Bose noise-canceling earphones work splendidly. "Huh, Mom? What'ya say? Huh, I can't hear ya? La-la-la-la-la, I can't f***ing hear you."

mad_jock
30th Dec 2014, 20:35
Helps if the mil speaks a different lingo to you.

pigboat
30th Dec 2014, 20:44
Surely people working out there in close contact with ebola are tested before they are allowed to return in commercial transport?or in any other transport for that matter.
Yeah Tony, they take your temperature. Couldn't be simpler. :mad:

Bat-filled tree may have been ground zero for the Ebola epidemic. (http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/12/bat-filled-tree-may-have-been-ground-zero-ebola-epidemic)

ExXB
31st Dec 2014, 09:34
Well I don't think you need worry about mosquitos this time of the year, at least in the 'excited kingdom. The ebola virus spreads through body fluids, and you would be at risk tending for the ill or handling a cadaver. You are at a very low risk being in the same room, and at no risk being in the same town as a victim.

Now, from the flu which is much more contagious, you are at serious risk from being present with a victim, or being where they have been over the last few hours (days). A number of people die from influenza every year. But we don't quarantine flu sufferers, nor do we make flu jabs mandatory.

It's in the media's interest to scare the hell out of you, it's in your own interest to evaluate the information properly.

You might change my mind if there was one victim who caught the virus in the UK and died.

Edited to add: (From the Sun) "Yes Ebola has a relatively high fatality rate. But it is hard to catch.

"It doesn't travel through the air and survives only a short time on surfaces. Soap and water kills it."

If you can't believe the Sun, who can you believe?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
31st Dec 2014, 09:38
Deutsche Welle's 'Africa Link' radio news this morning quoted a UN official saying that there was "no immediate end to the outbreak in sight".

G-CPTN
3rd Jan 2015, 16:00
BBC News - UK Ebola nurse Pauline Cafferkey 'in critical condition' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30666265)

dazdaz1
3rd Jan 2015, 16:35
Sad news of the nurses condition, looks like the anti bodies of persons who have recovered don't seem to be working. Having said that, kudos to the medical staff who are caring for her.

I anticipate dire bad news in the next 24 hours.

vulcanised
3rd Jan 2015, 17:33
I totally fail to understand what these medical folk are trying to achieve in going out to Africa in the first place.

scr1
3rd Jan 2015, 17:46
I totally fail to understand what these medical folk are trying to achieve in going out to Africa in the first place

This is why

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.

From the Talmud

To die saving another is life is one of the most noblest ways possible to go.

Lon More
3rd Jan 2015, 17:50
I totally fail to understand what these medical folk are trying to achieve in going out to Africa in the first place.

In the military they'd call it bravery. Putting themselves in harm's way.

More kudos to her, agreeing to try totally unproven tratment. Maybe her condition was immediately diagnosed as far more serious than was publicly made known?

fitliker
3rd Jan 2015, 17:54
The biggest threat to public health is not Nurses and Doctors returning from Africa ,but sexual tourists engaging in nasty deviant sexual practices in foreign places and returning home to share the drug resistant strains of once curable STDs with others.

dazdaz1
3rd Jan 2015, 17:58
Totally agree Vulcan, I think the scenario is to keep ebola away from UK shores by sending medical staff to avoid a bridging to western Europe.

My feelings are, pull out of Western Africa, let ebola take its course. I hate to say this, Africa is the boil on the bum of the world.

Mother Earth is giving us a warning, let Africa die in the sands of time, too many humans, breeding like rats, let them live in their own sewers. Western aid (people who put coins into collection boxes) are diminishing, caring for the people of their own country and rightly so!

I thank you.

Sop_Monkey
3rd Jan 2015, 18:08
Closing the gate after the horse has bolted, comes to mind.

The UN and WHO should have done a whole lot more years ago to attempt to contain this disease!! Why was more not done then? What excuse did they have not too.

A lot of them are useless over paid imbeciles. IMHO.

Capetonian
3rd Jan 2015, 18:41
My feelings are, pull out of Western Africa, let ebola take its course. I hate to say this, Africa is the boil on the bum of the world.

Mother Earth is giving us a warning, let Africa die in the sands of time, too many humans, breeding like rats, let them live in their own sewers.Sadly I have to agree. Africa's biggest problem is black Africans. Other communities living on the continent have managed to thrive and prosper, black Africans just descend deeper into a maelstrom of corruption, disease, starvation, and misery - all of their own making.

Low Flier
3rd Jan 2015, 19:31
First, I should say that I'm full of admiration for the NHS and RAF medical team(s) who medivaced the patient out of Scotland and took her to London where she can get the best medical treatment in the country.

The news in post #31 is truly dreadful in a couple of ways. The indications that she's not responding well to treatment are looking particularly grim.

What is perhaps most appalling is this statement in that BBC report:
She was screened for the disease at Heathrow where she told officials she believed a fever might be developing.

Here we have a screening process that is clearly not fit for purpose. Here we have a case of someone telling the port medical authorities that she's arriving from Sierra Leone, which is well known to be one of the epicentres of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and she declared that she had been in immediate proximity to Ebola patients and corpses, and she declares that she's feeling feverish. The response was to that case was to put her onto an onward flight and send her to the most populous city in Scotland. Not good.

At a local level, I'm glad that Scotland is still part of an integrated United Kingdom which has the critical mass to have such specialised facilities. An amputated Scotland almost certainly would not have the ability to replicate such sophisticated an costly services and capabilities. Never mind the crappiness of Freetown, Casablanca and Heathrow's inadequate health screening standards. It was the NHS in Scotland which initiated proper action in this woman's case.

perthsaint
3rd Jan 2015, 19:35
Why do you assume that such a patient in an independent Scotland would not be sent elsewhere for better treatment if the circumstances warranted it?

Low Flier
3rd Jan 2015, 19:43
I'm not aware of the UK taking non-UK Ebola patients from any foreign country for treatment in the UK NHS. I'm not aware of any proposals to replicate the RAF's substantial medical evacuation capability in the failed proposals for an amputation of Scotland from the UK.

More to the point, I think the Heathrow screening process for the current epidemic is unfit for purpose and could, in only very slightly different circumstances, have caused a major public health hazard in the most densely populated part of Scotland.

I still hope that the lassie pulls through, though the realistic portents are not at all good.

perthsaint
3rd Jan 2015, 19:50
Ebola patients are never moved for treatment in a foreign country....:rolleyes:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/world/2015/01/03/s_korean_medic_injured_while_treating_ebola_patient_flown_to _germany_for_care.html

I agree with your final sentence, which is why I find your failed attempt at political point-scoring crass.

MFC_Fly
3rd Jan 2015, 19:56
Ebola patients are never moved for treatment in a foreign country....:rolleyes:
So where exactly does anyone say that? Maybe I missed it, but what I read was...
I'm not aware of the UK taking non-UK Ebola patients from any foreign country for treatment in the UK NHS.

perthsaint
3rd Jan 2015, 20:00
Yes, MFC, I'm sure it was. This is to what I was responding.


"At a local level, I'm glad that Scotland is still part of an integrated United Kingdom which has the critical mass to have such specialised facilities. An amputated Scotland almost certainly would not have the ability to replicate such sophisticated an costly services and capabilities"

This, however, is not the thread for such a discussion so I will not be commenting further.

radeng
3rd Jan 2015, 20:22
Low Flier said:

>I still hope that the lassie pulls through<


We can all agree with that. The very best wishes for her - I am sure from all Ppruners.

OFSO
3rd Jan 2015, 20:23
I've just caught the tail-end of a news item saying there's a second unconnected suspected case in the UK. Anyone heard any more ?

radeng
3rd Jan 2015, 20:34
Person in isolation who had just returned from West Africa at the Great We.stern Hospital in Swindon for tests

izod tester
3rd Jan 2015, 20:35
The Gloucester Citizen Gloucester Citizen Online | GloucesterCitizen.co.uk | Gloucester Citizen (http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/) is reporting that someone from South Gloucestershire, who has recently returned from West Africa and who is displaying Ebola like symptoms, has been transferred to Swindon.

G-CPTN
3rd Jan 2015, 21:26
BBC News - Ebola tests on Swindon Great Western Hospital patient (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30668872)

radeng
4th Jan 2015, 12:20
Apparently the Swindon one is all clear, but the Scots lassie is not doing well at all. Let's hope, pray and keep fingers crossed for her....

ExXB
4th Jan 2015, 15:26
Closing the gate after the horse has bolted, comes to mind.

The UN and WHO should have done a whole lot more years ago to attempt to contain this disease!! Why was more not done then? What excuse did they have not too.

A lot of them are useless over paid imbeciles. IMHO.

With all the due respect your post deserves would you mind doing just a bit of research before you plagiarise the Daily Snail?

The WHO is a specialist agency of the United Nations. It is headquartered in Geneva (hence the high salaries - it is expensive to live here).

I know a number of people that work at the WHO and without exception they are dedicated and hard working. Like every organisation on earth they have views on some of their senior management that are not complementary - but that doesn't stop them from doing a stellar job. Some of their major successes include:


Elimination of smallpox (in 1967, smallpox was endemic in 31 countries. In that year alone, between 10 and 15 million people were stricken with the disease: some 2 million died and millions of survivors were disfigured or blinded for life.) P Poliomyelitis (Polio) has been eliminated almost everywhere - saving millions from paralysis. It remains one of the WHO's top priorities.
Discovered a cure for Yaws, a crippling and disfiguring disease afflicting some 50 million people. Have you even heard of the disease?
Reduction in Onchocerciasis (river blindness) a parasitic disease of the tropics. About 10 million children born in the area since the programme began no longer risk contracting the disease.
Millions of children have been saved annually from death and disability from infectious diseases, owing to global immunization programmes. Already, eight out of ten of the world’s children are protected against six major childhood diseases — diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis and poliomyelitis. Child mortality has been greatly reduced, from 134 to about 80, per 1000 births. The world’s infant mortality rate has fallen by more than 37%.
WHO is at the threshold of eliminating other major diseases in the next few years, such as poliomyelitis, guinea-worm disease, Onchocerciasis, Chagas disease, neonatal tetanus, and leprosy.

These successes are not only in the third world. You and your children will live longer healthier lives because of WHO's work. Smallpox, Poliomyelitis, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Measles and Tuberculosis are mostly a thing of the past because of them.

Yes, they dropped the ball with this outbreak of Ebola, which spread much further than in any of the 24 previous outbreaks since 1976, and much further than anyone expected. Their role is not to send it hit teams to cure the outbreak, but to coordinate global responses and to assist affected countries.

We will see an end to this outbreak in 2015. And it won't be because of those hiding under their beds, hoping that they will be safe if they lock the rest of the world out.

radeng
4th Jan 2015, 15:45
The WHOs attempts on polio are, sadly, thwarted by the evil, stupid and wicked Taliban.....if they were the only ones who got it, it would be very fitting.

ExXB
4th Jan 2015, 16:09
radeng, I couldn't agree more. But you will recall that a certain 'intelligence' agency used a 'hoax' polio vaccine to obtain DNA samples from a man they were looking for. Since then the terrorists have thwarted further attempts to vaccinate against polio, and other childhood diseases.

A decidedly unpleasant individual was found, but how many children (and aid workers) will die as a result of the hoax? Sometimes, methinks, the ends do not justify the means.

VP959
4th Jan 2015, 16:26
Closing the gate after the horse has bolted, comes to mind.

The UN and WHO should have done a whole lot more years ago to attempt to contain this disease!! Why was more not done then? What excuse did they have not too.

A lot of them are useless over paid imbeciles. IMHO.

This disease has ALWAYS been contained, so the above just shows ignorance of the epidemiology of this, and similar, viral diseases. The human population of the world can be completely free of Ebola (and Marburg, Lassa and the other haemorrhagic viruses) for years, then an outbreak suddenly pops up seemingly from nowhere.

One theory for this outbreak is that a young child was infected from a bat colony in a tree, which is plausible, but unproven as yet. In the past, outbreaks have been associated with eating bush meat, the theory being that some primates and bats can carry the virus and transmit it to humans.

It isn't a disease like small pox that the WHO or anyone else can ever eradicate, as there will always be reservoirs of it in animal populations in certain areas.

Sop_Monkey
4th Jan 2015, 20:02
Would you please specify the boundaries of this "containment"?

airship
4th Jan 2015, 20:13
If I'd been brave enough to volunteer to look after Ebola sufferers in west Africa.

And I thought I might have a fever.

And I thought it might be Ebola.

And I thought about about whether I'd prefer to be looked after 'out there' or be cared for in a 1st class properly equipped medical facility back in the UK.

And I thought I probably wasn't really contagious yet...

Would you blame me? :uhoh:

SpringHeeledJack
4th Jan 2015, 21:35
If I'd been brave enough to volunteer to look after Ebola sufferers in west Africa.

And I thought I might have a fever.

And I thought it might be Ebola.

And I thought about about whether I'd prefer to be looked after 'out there' or be cared for in a 1st class properly equipped medical facility back in the UK.

And I thought I probably wasn't really contagious yet...

Would you blame me?

I wouldn't, but I would question your motivation to travel to a far away area of great danger to treat people who mean nothing to you, and then return harbouring this deadly disease to most likely infect those countrymen who apparently mean so little ? And that's not even counting the huge direct and indirect costs :D


SHJ

VP959
4th Jan 2015, 21:44
Would you please specify the boundaries of this "containment"?

Yes.

It is very, very simple.

Ebola does simply not exist in the human population of the planet for years on end. As such, it is contained, in as much as it doesn't exist in humans during these periods.

Unlike many other rather nasty diseases, Ebola (and the other haemorrhagic fevers) is not hosted in humans. It appears almost randomly by transfer from unknown (most probably animal) hosts from time to time, causing human outbreaks that are often self-limiting (just because, in the past, the high fatality rate, short incubation period and relatively poor mobility of the populations in the parts of Africa where the disease has occurred has stopped it spreading far).

Sop_Monkey
4th Jan 2015, 21:54
Thanks for that.

Bit like bird flue in 1918. How many did that kill so far? 15 - 20 million? I say so far, as i believe it will raise it's ugly head again.

You're correct though as to my inappropriate use of containment. I should have used control.

You mentioned mobility. There lies the problem, with Ebola.

vulcanised
4th Jan 2015, 22:28
Well said, Jack !

bosnich71
5th Jan 2015, 03:44
Just a thought ..... given that this poor lady is a health professional, went to Africa to treat Ebola victims where she, presumably, took all precautions to prevent herself from catching the disease then how did she get infected given that we are constantly informed that this can't/won't happen if proper procedures are followed ?

pigboat
5th Jan 2015, 04:02
Shhhhh.... You shouldn't ask questions like that. It'll upset too many applecarts.

wiggy
5th Jan 2015, 06:08
bosnich71

how did she get infected given that we are constantly informed that this can't/won't happen if proper procedures are followed ?

If you are referring to the UK nurse the media's version of events ( as seemingly told to them by one of her colleagues) is that she attended a church service outside the treatment centre on Christmas Day. At this service she was seen making direct physical contact with some of the locals - it's suspected that's when she caught the disease.

VP959
5th Jan 2015, 07:58
Thanks for that.

Bit like bird flue in 1918. How many did that kill so far? 15 - 20 million? I say so far, as i believe it will raise it's ugly head again.

You're correct though as to my inappropriate use of containment. I should have used control.

You mentioned mobility. There lies the problem, with Ebola.

Influenza, of all types, is massively more contagious than Ebola (or the other VHFs). It's really quite hard to get infected with Ebola, as like HIV you have to come into physical contact with someone who is in the final stages of the disease, where they are actively excreting viral particles. In practice this mean skin or mucous membrane contact with body fluids from someone who is very ill, or direct (and rapid) transfer of body fluids from someone who is very ill. By very ill I mean someone who has cells rupturing and releasing viral particles, the "haemorrhagic" part of the name of these viruses.

Someone who is in the early stages of infection, suffering just mild flu-like symptoms with a low fever, won't be shedding viral particles and so won't be infectious. The infectious stage starts after the high fever, which is disabling high, so readily detectable. Someone walking around apparently well, but with the early stages of the disease, is extremely unlikely to be infectious.

Influenza is very different. It is orders of magnitude more infectious because within hours of infection people will be excreting viral particles, before they have any symptoms at all of being ill, and the infection can be acquired by contact with any surface that an infected person has touched, as well as by droplet spray by coughing or sneezing from an infected person. That's why influenza, and similar classes of viral infection, are considered to be far, far more globally hazardous than diseases like Ebola.

bosnich71
5th Jan 2015, 09:04
Wiggy ...... not so "professional" then ?
Which makes one wonder about the risk factor with "non professionals".

Checkboard
5th Jan 2015, 13:45
Someone who is in the early stages of infection, suffering just mild flu-like symptoms with a low fever, won't be shedding viral particles and so won't be infectious. The infectious stage starts after the high fever, which is disabling high, so readily detectable. Someone walking around apparently well, but with the early stages of the disease, is extremely unlikely to be infectious.
If this disabling high fever is so readily detectable - how is any informed human infected?

ExXB
5th Jan 2015, 14:22
From the BBC:

Avoid contact with Ebola patients and their bodily fluids, the WHO advises. Do not touch anything - such as shared towels - which could have become contaminated in a public place.

Washing hands and improving hygiene is one of the best ways to fight the virus
Carers should wear gloves and protective equipment, such as masks, and wash their hands regularly.

The WHO also warns against consuming raw bushmeat and any contact with infected bats or monkeys and apes. Fruit bats in particular are considered a delicacy in the area of Guinea where the outbreak started.

In March, Liberia's health minister advised people to stop having sex, in addition to existing advice not to shake hands or kiss. The WHO says men can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to seven weeks after recovering from Ebola.

Fighting the fear and stigmatisation surrounding Ebola is one of the greatest challenges health workers face.

VP959
5th Jan 2015, 20:11
If this disabling high fever is so readily detectable - how is any informed human infected?

If you look at the "informed humans" that have been infected, the vast majority have been health workers.

They are working with really, really infectious patients, and several times a day are required to go through the equivalent of NBC don/doff procedures. With the best will in the world this process carries a degree of risk, particularly doffing the kit and all the intermediate chlorine spray downs needed at each stage.

They also have to adopt a very rigorous "no touch" policy whenever they aren't wearing protective clothing, and that is very difficult to do without extensive training, and even then is emotionally challenging, by all accounts.

When around very ill people with this virus the probability of infection without protective clothing is extremely high, with protective clothing it is still non-negligible, sadly.

vulcanised
5th Jan 2015, 20:43
But what is the point?!

They can't cure it, they can't immunise against it.

Limeygal
5th Jan 2015, 21:26
What I find interesting is that the gentleman in Texas who died, had just come over to visit his girlfriend. She lived with several others in a small flat. Assuming there was more than a quick handshake between girlfriend and patient, plus living in such close quarters-why didn't any of them get the disease? Just wondering. . .

VP959
5th Jan 2015, 21:42
What I find interesting is that the gentleman in Texas who died, had just come over to visit his girlfriend. She lived with several others in a small flat. Assuming there was more than a quick handshake between girlfriend and patient, plus living in such close quarters-why didn't any of them get the disease? Just wondering. . .

Because he wasn't infectious at that stage in the progression of the disease.

It's been said here a few times, but Ebola (and the other VHFs) aren't infectious until the infected person is seriously ill.

This is very different to other viral diseases, like influenza, for example, where an infected person can be highly infectious when they have few, or no, symptoms of the disease.

It's the reason that the screening plan is sensible (despite the media hype), as for as long as someone infected with Ebola isn't seriously ill, they are not infectious. They become very highly infectious at the point where all their infected cells start to rupture and release thousands of millions of viral particles into their bodily fluids. At this stage the infected person is very ill, probably with haemorrhages from every orifice and through the skin as infected sweat, all of which will have a very high viral load, so pose a very high risk to anyone who comes into contact with them.

airship
5th Jan 2015, 21:57
It might be an opportune moment to delve a little deeper into the countries currently most suffering from Ebola (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/01/ebola-graphics):

GUINEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea): ex. French colony. The French left this country with a relatively well-developed infra-structure, ensuring the country could handle the Ebola outbreak. And why it is one of the least-affected countries in the region, requiring few external resources to handle this extra-ordinary situation.

SIERRA LEONE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone): ex. British colony. The British left this colony like most of their others, having asset-stripped the country of what was worthwhile. In addition to persuading many doctors and nurses to further their careers in UK NHS hospitals. Leaving Sierra Leone with no real infra-structure to handle the Ebola outbreak. Which is partly why David Cameron very loudly shouts-out that the UK are doing perhaps "more than their fair share" compared to other countries, whilst concentrating the UK's recent efforts with the Ebola outbreak mostly in Sierra Leone...?!

LIBERIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia): the USA "carved-out" Liberia from western Africa (when that was still allowed - UKIP voters must be crying now...?!) in order to repatriate black-American slaves...?! Then forgot about them basically. Even when Charles Taylor and other rebels threatened peace. Finally, President Obama, feeling some guilt, decides to intervene and (concentrates the US efforts in Liberia, of all places)...?!

If Ebola is ever to be totally defeated in western Africa, it might take a huge and magnanimous effort on the part of the Chinese (in return for the usual mineral rights etc.)...?!

PS. What is the usual or contractual 'turn-around' program for volunteer Ebola nurses in Sierra Leone? If like some ship's crews, they're on 2 months on / 2 months off rotation, does joining the ship sometime in November 2014 and leaving just 6 weeks later appear unusual? Especially if 'fellow workers' (whether or not en masse, did not also accompany this particular UK nurse 'out of Africa'? :confused:

bosnich71
5th Jan 2015, 22:30
Well, that's sorted it out.... if the French had colonised all of Africa there would be no need to worry.

airship
5th Jan 2015, 22:53
Yup, you said it bosnich71!

Of course, if the Brits were still running Oz, you could blame them for all the wildfires running amok in the south-east currently...?! :ok:

419
6th Jan 2015, 01:49
But what is the point?!
They can't cure it, they can't immunise against it.

Not that long ago, the same could have been said about polio, cholera, typhoid, rabies etc.
The point is that by helping to quarantine infected people you are reducing the likelihood of the disease spreading and also allowing further work into a cure being found.

bosnich71
6th Jan 2015, 02:27
Airship .... the word on the street about fires in Oz is that they are somewhat exacerbated by the "Greeny Effect" and that's nowt to do with the British ..... or the French for that matter.
P.s. in my long years out here in the colonies, though, I have found that the British do tend to be the first port of call when some sort of blame needs to be attached .... bit like some of your entries. Smiley added.

ExXB
7th Jan 2015, 07:45
An interesting NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/world/leader-of-world-health-organization-defends-ebola-response.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0) story of failings at the very top of the WHO.

Pity when politics and personal ambition gets in the way of saving lives. She should be relived of her position, but of course she won't be.

G-CPTN
12th Jan 2015, 14:17
BBC News - Ebola nurse no longer critically ill (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30783537)

radeng
12th Jan 2015, 14:23
>BBC News - Ebola nurse no longer critically ill<


Very good news indeed.

G-CPTN
24th Jan 2015, 20:02
BBC News - Ebola nurse: Pauline Cafferkey 'happy to be alive' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30967337)