Ebola scaremongering?

It doesn't actually matter if it is killing 50 or 70 %, both are very high figures, if we had a proper epidemic the country would collapse.
The position of best defence is, and always has been, prevent spread, not treat.

Aid agencies rushing into zones to treat, with rubbish facilities, no governmental control of people movement, and no actual treatment was a disaster.

Building massive treatment facilities, even in the form of camps might be a good idea. These morgues will concentreate people with the illness, and minimise spread. High death rate becomes irrevelant, if it doesn't spread it dies out.
Nukes won't help, too wide an area, and ebola bunnies would flee before you can nuke all the aid workers.
 
tom_e said:
Apart from he got it from the WHO website :confused:
Click to expand...

Maybe if he is garnering information from websites then he shouldn't be bandying around the "it's a fact!" line. Plenty of other websites and a proper examination of what the WHO are now saying would say a completely different figure. This is why it's not a fact it's an opinion as I stated. If he had bothered to do that rather than jumping on the first thing he came upon as a "fact" then I wouldn't have jumped to the armchair expert opinion.
 
ThundyCat said:
How did the two nurses in Dallas contract it if they were wearing protective clothing?
Click to expand...

Because they didn't know how to use it properly and the hospital quite clearly isn't that good and are out of their depth with staff that are inadequately trained.

Note how MSF are working with legions of patients and are not having this problems. The healthcare staff that are getting ill are the ones who shouldn't be doing the job eg the British chap, the Spanish nurse, this Dallas hospital.

It's not even that much of a contagious disease it's just when people are at the end the shed so much of it. If you are careful you don't get it, if you obey protocols you don't get it, if you know what you are doing you don't get it.

Looks at what MSF requires from a nurse:

"Requirements

Significant post-qualification nursing experience, preferably in one or more of the following areas: infectious diseases, A&E, intensive care, obstetrics, nutrition, paediatrics, operating theatre
Valid Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) or Irish Nursing Board registration
Diploma in tropical nursing or relevant nursing experience in a tropical environment
Experience in supervising, managing and training others
Available for a minimum of nine months
Minimum of three months work, volunteering or travel experience in developing countries
Willingness to work in unstable areas
Adaptable and able to work in a multicultural team
Flexible and able to manage stress"

They wouldn't have taken the British nurses who got ill would they he hardly met any of their criteria. They set those criteria for this very reason.
 
Xordium said:
Because they didn't know how to use it properly and the hospital quite clearly isn't that good and are out of their depth with staff that are inadequately trained.

Note how MSF are working with legions of patients and are not having this problems. The healthcare staff that are getting ill are the ones who shouldn't be doing the job eg the British chap, the Spanish nurse, this Dallas hospital.

It's not even that much of a contagious disease it's just when people are at the end the shed so much of it. If you are careful you don't get it, if you obey protocols you don't get it, if you know what you are doing you don't get it.

Looks at what MSF requires from a nurse:

"Requirements

Significant post-qualification nursing experience, preferably in one or more of the following areas: infectious diseases, A&E, intensive care, obstetrics, nutrition, paediatrics, operating theatre
Valid Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) or Irish Nursing Board registration
Diploma in tropical nursing or relevant nursing experience in a tropical environment
Experience in supervising, managing and training others
Available for a minimum of nine months
Minimum of three months work, volunteering or travel experience in developing countries
Willingness to work in unstable areas
Adaptable and able to work in a multicultural team
Flexible and able to manage stress"

They wouldn't have taken the British nurses who got ill would they he hardly met any of their criteria. They set those criteria for this very reason.
Click to expand...

http://www.jems.com/article/news/16-members-doctors-without-borders-infec

Well according to the above line, 16 MSF medical workers have been infected with Ebola, and 9 of them are dead...
 
IIRC the different death rates are based on differing information and at different times.

At the moment the death rate is rising because the number of people able to treat the sick effectively is going down (a lot of the areas has very poor health services to begin with, and in many cases the original staff treating it have been infected themselves), and the number of sick increasing.
Which means that people that might well survive if they had access to proper facilities, medicines and trained medical staff are now dying because they aren't getting fluids in to replace the ones lost etc (apparently shock is a big killer with ebola due to the affect of blood loss, as will be the loss of fluids and salts due to the diarrhoea).

If the influx of aid, medical staff and new temporary facilities is enough we'll probably see the death rate peak and then drop as the better care (and fewer new infections) kicks in, if it's not enough the death rate could continue to rise outside of the areas that still have effective health care.

It's much better to try and provide the care where possible in the areas, if just because it reduces the chance that someone will attempt (and manage) once they think they're infected to get to a more heavily populated area and then start being contagious (an infected person on say the London, Tokyo, or NY tube system would be a nightmare as thousands could be exposed in a very short space of time).

I was watching a report earlier where they were saying that basically the affects of ebloa on the non infected is possibly going to be almost as big a killer, and a much worse long term thing, because people are now more likely to be dying of non ebola illnesses, childbirth etc due to the loss of the healthcare workers, and the loss of teachers, breadwinners means that the children are more likely to not get even a basic education, and be forced to work young and/or go hungry.
 
scorza said:
http://www.jems.com/article/news/16-members-doctors-without-borders-infec

Well according to the above line, 16 MSF medical workers have been infected with Ebola, and 9 of them are dead...
Click to expand...

I said they aren't having the problems not they aren't having any problems. There is a quantitative difference between having 4 doctors and 20 nurses looking after 1 patient and a staff member getting ill in a fully equipped hospital and an international aid organisation looking after the populations of 5 countries with 3000+ staff over a period of 6 months in barely equipped sheds. But feel free to pretend like they are the same. The point is if protocols are followed people don't get problems. If they aren't then they do. Inexperienced people will be less able to follow protocols they aren't aware of. How many years of people messed around with ebola in labs and how many incidents have we had? Two that spring to mind - both of which are documented mistakes 1 from memory a needlestick injury.
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC the different death rates are based on differing information and at different times.
Click to expand...

There is a variable in their estimation they have simply changed the variable. It is not based upon exact numbers it is based upon what they have documented and what they think has occurred. This is why it's not a "fact" but an opinion a guess. How many people died during WW2 we don't know that either but we guess it the exact number is not a fact either.

You can only test those that you see but in epidemiology you have to account for the unknown. If you had a disease and it killed 0.1% of a population but left the others with no symptoms and you based your figures solely on admission data you would be saying you had the most dangerous thing ever.
 
How long before this becomes a viable and required option!!!

apocalypse-now_napalm_zps35cc6a1d.jpg
 
Nelly said:
If it does reach 10,000 cases a week in Africa, do you think anything like this could be considered, or even Nuclear weapons?

I would presume it would be the easiest way of destroying the virus on a huge scale.

Click to expand...

no because people are very spread out/also people will tend to travel to vist the site of such a blast looters/reporters/relatives looking for survivors thus risking infection. great if wiping out a bunch oif people trapped in a 30 meter clearing a sprawling town/villages network though no not at all.

easier to let them die naturally.
 
Bit late for that now would have worked at the start though! In all seriousness though they should just let people die from the off. Considering how many people have died from ebola you have to wonder how many more people have died from other causes through the lack of medical and nursing staff and the diverting of resources. You can't save everyone and in situations like this it's better to employ reverse triage and accept that fact.
 
Werewolf said:
I was watching a report earlier where they were saying that basically the affects of ebloa on the non infected is possibly going to be almost as big a killer, and a much worse long term thing, because people are now more likely to be dying of non ebola illnesses, childbirth etc due to the loss of the healthcare workers, and the loss of teachers, breadwinners means that the children are more likely to not get even a basic education, and be forced to work young and/or go hungry.
Click to expand...

Indeed, 'collapse' of the three nation states most affected is now likely in my opinion.
 
Out of interest, how bad does something like this need to get before you start limiting inbound travel or halting it completely?
 
And then another one about X number of the 132 on that flight are confirmed infected ... after they've been in contact with their families, friends, work, strangers on the tube, bus, etc.
 
Wow letting that nurse travel was beyond stupid.

We need to stop inbound travel from infected countries before it takes hold in the west. Screening at airports its ineffective
 
I can't believe it.
This is absolutely retarded.
Why these countries were not quarantined as soon as it got anywhere near serious.

I really don't care about the economics of it. But flying people in and out to treat? Wtf.
Now look where we are.
As always the slight impact of restricting travel etc and the proper sorting of this has been left too late.

I do feel a bit silly for changing my initial 'this is the most important news issue' stance when I was convinced that it isn't that infectious and spread was due to 'African practice'. Seems even our measures are pathetic even though we no what needs doing

Incompetence, slow reactions, ignorance.
All great for the virus.
 
al4x said:
But flying people in and out to treat? Wtf.
Click to expand...
It's not just flying people to treat, there are still commercial flights from the three worst affected countries into Europe each week, loads of flights from neighbouring Senegal and masses from nearby Nigeria. I'd estimate hundreds of people are leaving that region pretty much daily - a few probably incubating the virus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom