Ebola virus outbreak

WakeUp

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yes.

Im not saying we stop people flying in there to help that isnt what Im saying. but why should we take a risk with people potentially leaving the country? why...

wexie

WakeUp wrote: »

no my mistake I had land border crossings in my mind as in countries geographical borders as opposed to airports.

To be honest I think there could be an argument made for both strategies.
The point quoted :

“When you close the legal points of entry, then you potentially drive people to use illegal passages, thus compounding the problem.”

Is perfectly valid, however not really applicable to airports, if you close an airport (or severely restrict travel) it's quite unlikely an illegal international airport is going to pop up down the road.** Closing actual border crossings though, will just mean loosing control over who and what makes it into the country.

** someone would notice

Creative Juices

WakeUp wrote: »

yep. without being worked up I certainly do. do you want to take a risk of someone being infected getting on a plane and traveling to somewhere. is that a risk worth taking?..

Yes I do want to take that risk over closing borders (and air routes!). Its an acceptable risk given the perceived threat.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Now there's a guy with omnipresence

Plum gets something right finally :eek:

gozunda

Creative Juices wrote: »

Good article here from Forbes, the lessons from Uganda section are interesting.

Apolgies, still cant post full links...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/20/what-can-africas-ebola-containment-successes-teach-other-nations/

All fixed

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

Im not saying we stop people flying in there to help that isnt what Im saying. but why should we take a risk with people potentially leaving the country? why...

A huge problem with that strategy is how is the useful stuff going to get in if there are no flights?
Exclusive humanitarian flights are very rare - most of the useful stuff gets in on regular scheduled commercial flights.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Plum gets something right finally :eek:

That's somewhat funny coming from you. :eek::eek:

Peist2007

Creative Juices wrote: »

Can someone test Peist2007 for ebola - I have no idea what he is on about.

Peist2007, initially my aim was to see you say something positive about the fight against ebola but as I explained yesterday, after you reported me, it's ok.

Good day to you Sir

Nope you see you are being disingenuous again. You are Spring Onion. Why not admit it?

gozunda

Creative Juices wrote: »

Not for me...?

Try again ... it must be just yourself

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That's somewhat funny coming from you. :eek::eek:

I was being sarcastic plum. You couldnt even get your insult correct.

Creative Juices

gozunda wrote: »

All fixed

Danke schön!

WakeUp

wexie wrote: »

To be honest I think there could be an argument made for both strategies.
The point quoted :

Is perfectly valid, however not really applicable to airports, if you close an airport (or severely restrict travel) it's quite unlikely an illegal international airport is going to pop up down the road.** Closing actual border crossings though, will just mean loosing control over who and what makes it into the country.

** someone would notice

ok so entry points/borders. as far as we are concerned it would be airports and ports would be the method by which people would travel. by restricting access to the west and the relatively small number of people who may travel would that not reduce the risk to us here in the west. because we dont share any land borders with these countries. that Duncan guy got on a plane and brought the virus to the states. its happened already. should we just wait and hope that doesnt happen again. which by not restricting air travel is what we are doing.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

I was being sarcastic plum. You couldnt even get your insult correct.

Apart from trolling, do you have anything useful to add? Anything at all??

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Apart from trolling, do you have anything useful to add? Anything at all??

Lol. I would think you and i have differing value systems. So we'll probably just fight over that. And you'll even get that wrong :pac:

WakeUp

Creative Juices wrote: »

Yes I do want to take that risk over closing borders (and air routes!). Its an acceptable risk given the perceived threat.

how is the potential spread of a bio level 4 agent, a biological warfare agent in the eyes of the military, an acceptable risk? what is acceptable about that...we dont have borders(geographical ones) to close but we can restrict air travel. so why not do that.

Creative Juices

Peist2007 wrote: »

Nope you see you are being disingenuous again. You are Spring Onion. Why not admit it?

Are you going to report me again for a crime I did no commit?

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

Lol. I would think you and i have differing value systems. So we'll probably just fight over that. And you'll even get that wrong :pac:

So nothing then. Thanks.

Any chance you could let the rest of us get on with the discussion?

wexie

WakeUp wrote: »

ok so entry points/borders. as far as we are concerned it would be airports and ports would be the method by which people would travel. by restricting access to the west and the relatively small number of people who may travel would that not reduce the risk to us here in the west. because we dont share any land borders with these countries. that Duncan guy got on a plane and brought the virus to the states. its happened already. should we just wait and hope that doesnt happen again. which by not restricting air travel is what we are doing.

You're asking the wrong guy, personally I think air travel should be severely restricted in and out of effected area's. As long as freight traffic and land borders are left open I think this could be done with a minimal effect on local economies and given the risks involved would absolutely be warranted.

Oh and before anyone mentions, I think people that are willing to fly halfway across the world to go volunteer to help fight an incredibly dangerous virus probably won't be put off from doing so by having to take an extra flight or having to endure a few extra safety measures.

Creative Juices

WakeUp wrote: »

how is the potential spread of a bio level 4 agent, a biological warfare agent in the eyes of the military, an acceptable risk? what is acceptable about that...we dont have borders(geographical ones) to close but we can restrict air travel. so why not do that.

Because the benefits of keeping borders open completely outweigh the negatives.

As an example - Ebola was imported into USA, 2 or 3 other healthcare workers (cant rem how many) got it but I believe they are doing fine. So it's essentially contained.

ProfessorPlum

wexie wrote: »

You're asking the wrong guy, personally I think air travel should be severely restricted in and out of effected area's. As long as freight traffic and land borders are left open I think this could be done with a minimal effect on local economies and given the risks involved would absolutely be warranted.

I'm not sure I get the logic there? The numbers traveling by air are comparatively small. There is already border screening. Why allow land borders to remain open when there are far greater numbers travelling and less oppertunity for exit screening?

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

So nothing then. Thanks.

Any chance you could let the rest of us get on with the discussion?

You mean ganging up on Wake Up and/or shouting down anyone who has less of a post count on this thread than you?

What are you even discussing anyways? What does a border mean? Want me to chime in on that one?

Or should we all stand back and clap Spring Onion who seems to have driven Ebola out of Nigeria all by himself? :pac:

Creative Juices

Peist2007 wrote: »

You mean ganging up on Wake Up and/or shouting down anyone who has less of a post count on this thread than you?

What are you even discussing anyways? What does a border mean? Want me to chime in on that one?

Or should we all stand back and clap Spring Onion who seems to have driven Ebola out of Nigeria all by himself? :pac:

If you don't mind Professorplum...

1. Wakeup is well capable of looking after himself (unless that's you)
2. Thread counts are irrelevant.
3. We have sorted the 'border' interpretation and moved on to the question at hand i.e. stopping air travel from affected countries
4. Nigeria did it themselves and the outlook is very positive.

Now, what exactly do you want?

ProfessorPlum

The other issue with closing borders is that it does nothing to improve the situation in the affected region, and it will severely worsen it. That can only be bad for there, and everywhere else. Generally speaking countries likely to get a few imported cases are well able to deal with it. The chances of it causing a significant epidemic are small. Even in less well developed countries, it would take a relatively small logistical effort to contain a small outbreak. Weigh that up against the economic and political damage that closing borders would do, I would agree with the opinion they should be kept open.

wexie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the logic there? The numbers traveling by air are comparatively small. There is already border screening. Why allow land borders to remain open when there are far greater numbers travelling and less oppertunity for exit screening?

Because someone crossing the (land border) from Liberia into Sierra Leone is a lot less likely to cause an outbreak in lets say Tuam, than someone hopping onto a plane in Conakry flying to Heathrow.

And as already pointed out earlier, closing land borders is likely to lead to illegal crossings and loss of control.

The way I see it it would allow the greatest opportunity to stop spread with the least amount of negative impact?

ProfessorPlum

Creative Juices wrote: »

If you don't mind Professorplum...

1. Wakeup is well capable of looking after himself (unless that's you)
2. Thread counts are irrelevant.
3. We have sorted the 'border' interpretation and moved on to the question at hand i.e. stopping air travel from affected countries
4. Nigeria did it themselves and the outlook is very positive.

Now, what exactly do you want?

No prob - I was just going to ignore it. All he wants is a scrap as far as I can see. And whatever about debating points, I've no time or inclination for the silliness he's bandying about now.

Creative Juices

We are learning

Ebola crisis turns a corner as U.S. issues new treatment protocols

w3.reuters.com/article/2014/10/21/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKCN0I919B20141021

(Reuters) - The United States issued stringent new protocols on Monday for health workers treating Ebola victims, directing medical teams to wear protective gear that leaves no skin or hair exposed to prevent medical workers from becoming infected.

The new guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta come as 43 people who were exposed to the first patient diagnosed in the United States were declared risk free, easing a national sense of crisis that took hold after two Texas nurses who treated him contracted the disease.

Under new protocols, Ebola healthcare workers also must undergo special training and demonstrate competency in using protective equipment. Use of the gear, now including coveralls, and single-use, disposable hoods, must be overseen by a supervisor to ensure proper procedures are followed when caring for patients with Ebola, which is transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids but is not airborne.

Peist2007

Creative Juices wrote: »

If you don't mind Professorplum...

1. Wakeup is well capable of looking after himself (unless that's you)
2. Thread counts are irrelevant.
3. We have sorted the 'border' interpretation and moved on to the question at hand i.e. stopping air travel from affected countries
4. Nigeria did it themselves and the outlook is very positive.

Now, what exactly do you want?

1. You arent that smart dude. You are Spring Onion. Very obvious.
2. Plum cited his previously. So happy you agree with me
3. Thank you so much. Good to see a new topic introduced :rolleyes:
4. I know they did. Is the outlook positive in Liberia?

To your last question, absolutely none of your business.

Peist2007

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

No prob - I was just going to ignore it. All he wants is a scrap as far as I can see. And whatever about debating points, I've no time or inclination for the silliness he's bandying about now.

What sillyness am i bandying about? The crazy notion that all should have a right to be heard here? Or do i need 1000 posts on this thread for that?

ProfessorPlum

wexie wrote: »

Because someone crossing the (land border) from Liberia into Sierra Leone is a lot less likely to cause an outbreak in lets say Tuam, than someone hopping onto a plane in Conakry flying to Heathrow.

And as already pointed out earlier, closing land borders is likely to lead to illegal crossings and loss of control.

The way I see it it would allow the greatest opportunity to stop spread with the least amount of negative impact?

Well of course they won't cause an outbreak in Tuam, but maybe one in a similarly sized town in Sierra Leone who's resources are already stretched (to put it mildly)

The problem with closing international air transport is you loose all of the humanitarian traffic too. Most of that is not arriving by land.

Creative Juices

Peist2007 wrote: »

1. You arent that smart dude. You are Spring Onion. Very obvious.
2. Plum cited his previously. So happy you agree with me
3. Thank you so much. Good to see a new topic introduced :rolleyes:
4. I know they did. Is the outlook positive in Liberia?

To your last question, absolutely none of your business.

ok