Ebola scaremongering?

[Blackjack Davy]

So there have been around 8k cases in the world to date over the course of months then the WHO say by the end of the year there will be 10k more per month?

Lol much, talk about ******* scaremongering and they are auplosed to be a responsible body!

You're not getting it. Its increasing exponentially. For every person infected they're infecting two others on average. Look up "exponential" in the dictionary. It's already killed more people than all the previous outbreaks put together.

 

[Rroff]

Ebola simply won't be allowed to get a foot-hold in the U.K, people who think we will see a significant/dangerous outbreak here are being just as hysterical and ridiculous as the media!

Over 20+ ebola outbreaks have occurred since 1976 all of which were ultimately dealt with and resolved, admittedly this is the worse one to date (mainly because of slow international response allowing the virus to get a foot-hold!) however it's not anything that can't be dealt with by a co-ordinated medical response from the medical community.
(Which is what is happening right now)
It isn't anywhere near as threatening or dangerous to us as the pathetic media are making out imho.

"allowed" doesn't really come into it, sloppy procedure, accidents, people being complacent, etc. can all result in a disease circumventing safety measures and once a disease of that nature gets a foothold its pretty much too late.

While I think the chances of a major outbreak here are slim its certainly not something I'd dismiss either.

The truth is we are not equiped to handle catagory 4 pathogens

No we aren't - if stuff hit the fan by the time the backup plan was in place it would be too little too late. I was kind of fascinated to notice after my previous post about where my dad works which can be reactively upgraded to cat 3/4 that there is actually provision in place for a direct route between it and the district hospital, fences that can easily be removed, ways through maintained so as to be able to use abandoned railway cuttings, streets that can be connected that are normal dead ends, dropped curbs seemingly at random, etc. where there is plainly a plan in place to be able to create a back route avoiding mainroads and any potential congestion, etc. its been like that all along but I never realised the significance of it before.

 

[rare]

The people who are undermining this are not taking it seriously at all.

If you have the potential for 10,000 new cases a week, within a time frame of 8 weeks, how the hell are you going to care for these people. They already are unable to care for the amount of people they have out there now. 10,000 cases a week will just be the start, if you aren't able to keep these people isolated, which you won't be able to, it will explode.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't get a foot hold in the UK. You have the potential situation where hundreds of thousands of people have a disease which is massively dangerous, in that it spreads under even the most secure situations (like it did to the nurse in America), and has a huge mortality rate. These african nations don't have the social and economic security to deal with a problem like that, it could turn horribly wrong. Thats why it needs to be taken seriously.

 

[Xordium]

admittedly this is the worse one to date (mainly because of slow international response allowing the virus to get a foot-hold!)

Actually it's the opposite the intervention has aided the spread. The easiest way to stop ebola spreading is to detect when it occurs quarantine the area and accept the deaths that would have happened anyway and let it burn itself out. The way to not deal with it is with inexperienced practitioners and inadequate resources when the patients are actively contagious.

The incompetence is astounding. Westminster applauding a inexperience nurse who did not understand his limitations, a Spanish hospital that took a patient who was certain to die even though it was highlighted they were inadequate to the task, a US hospital that had already shown mismanagement, etc.

 

[rare]

Actually it's the opposite the intervention has aided the spread. The easiest way to stop ebola spreading is to detect when it occurs quarantine the area and accept the deaths that would have happened anyway and let it burn itself out.

We've passed this now though unfortunately, but you are right. It's impossible to enforce this now.

 

[StriderX]

Pfft, just kill the hosts. Humanitarian ideals are fairly inverted in terms of reward when dealing with viruses.

 

[bainbridge]

I am a bit concerned about this. With air travel at an all time high an infected person could transfer Ebola thousands of miles in a few hours.

People landing at Heathrow from Liberia today were offered a screening and only a handful accepted, the rest simply walked through.

Once it is here we'll start panicking and taking serious measures but many people will unfortunately die in the UK before this happens.

 

[Curio]

This has the potential to be unimaginably bad for less developed countries. Nigeria will explode next, that's almost guaranteed. They're also seriously worried about India - 1.2bn people packed in a country with less than great facilities.

 

[Tefal]

No, he's got no relevant qualifications at all - that doesn't mean what he's writing isn't interesting though. This day and age, with a billion articles on any subject you can think to look up - the onus is squarely on the reader to take or leave anything they read. Internet 101 surely?

not really. the onus is on the writer to be clear if what they're writing is fact or fiction.

orlov may be a good writer but it's no different to any disaster novel.

it's akin to using the film Armageddon to uphold your position on what to do when an asteroid is detected.

 

[clv101]

Nope, still not worried about Ebola.

I hope you're right, but the situation we have today is a worry in my opinion. 'Collapse' of nation states in West Africa now seems likely. That in itself won't have a big impact on us in the UK - we've recently seen the collapse of Syria, Libya, Somalia etc... What's different this time is that hundreds of thousands of people - many carrying the virus will likely try their hardest to get out of there. That puts the rest of Africa at risk - but also wider afield. There are many places with inadequate health care facilities. It's also worth remembering that the Ebola viruses, while not very contagious are extremely infectious. This makes reliable safe handling challenging; we've had accidental infections at Porton Down and two in Russia in the past (in highest security facilities) as well as the recent cases in Spain and US. Your average western hospital isn't able to handle such an infectious virus.

Here's an article published by the US DoD, comments by a Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly on the significance of Ebola reaching Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador etc.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123359

We're aren't there yet - it is still (assuming we don't get half a dozen new cases in the US or Spain this week) contained in West Africa - but the situation is currently getting worse, fast, and assets required to treat 70% of cases in isolation (what's needed to shrink the number of new cases) are not even on route yet. Yesterday evening there are a commercial flight from Monrovia to Brussels. Remember, incubation period up to three weeks...

I don't understand how folk aren't worried about this.

 

[scorza]

I am a bit concerned about this. With air travel at an all time high an infected person could transfer Ebola thousands of miles in a few hours.

People landing at Heathrow from Liberia today were offered a screening and only a handful accepted, the rest simply walked through.

Once it is here we'll start panicking and taking serious measures but many people will unfortunately die in the UK before this happens.

It's pointless - there are no direct flights from Liberia or Sierra Leone and they've admitted that they don't have a clue where passengers arriving from other destinations originated from.

What we should be doing is closing all ports and airports so there is zero risk of Ebola coming to the UK. That would damage the economy however which is much more important than people's lives.

 

[Xordium]

I don't understand how folk aren't worried about this.

Because if it takes a rampant hold worldwide you just stay at home and you have simply won't get it and when everyone has died house prices will be affordable again?

 

[scorza]

Because if it takes a rampant hold worldwide you just stay at home and you have simply won't get it

Why don't people do that in Sierra Leone and Liberia then?

 

[Josh]

Why don't people do that in Sierra Leone and Liberia then?

This is exactly what I was thinking.

It is too late to stop this going "global" - should never have interviened in the first place and let the virus burn itself out.

 

[Freefaller]

I don't understand why they do not close the borders of the affected countries and if someone wants to leave, they are checked and left in quarantine for 3 weeks and not allowed to leave until they get the all clear, rather than trying to scan everyone coming into other countries. By then you're already increasing the chance of it spreading by letting people leave the infected countries. Containment is better than cure.

 

[scorza]

I don't understand why they do not close the borders of the affected countries and if someone wants to leave, they are checked and left in quarantine for 3 weeks and not allowed to leave until they get the all clear, rather than trying to scan everyone coming into other countries. By then you're already increasing the chance of it spreading by letting people leave the infected countries. Containment is better than cure.

Thought you weren't in favour of borders and thought people should be able to go wherever they wanted?

 

[Freefaller]

Yes because this is the same thing...

 

[scorza]

Well it is the same thing because the whole point of borders is to control the movement of people in and out of your country. You can't on the one hand say "let's not have any borders and just let people go wherever they want" and then on the other hand say "let's close the borders of Ebola infected countries".

 

[Basher]

Well it is the same thing because the whole point of borders is to control the movement of people in and out of your country. You can't on the one hand say "let's not have any borders and just let people go wherever they want" and then on the other hand say "let's close the borders of Ebola infected countries".

Erm, yes you can. Free movement in normal situation and close-down during times of severe disease are two entirely different scenarios.

Either way, screening is already happening as people board in affected countries, but by the time they land at their destination their condition could have changed dramatically.

 

[Freefaller]

Well it is the same thing because the whole point of borders is to control the movement of people in and out of your country. You can't on the one hand say "let's not have any borders and just let people go wherever they want" and then on the other hand say "let's close the borders of Ebola infected countries".

Congratulations for reaching superhuman levels of absurdity!