Ebola virus outbreak

WakeUp

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.

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.

and I would agree with this. we arent in a position to close land borders as we dont have any so they arent of concern to us. airports and ports is where its at for us . moving freight in and out and what not is fine but not people not at the moment not until this is at least somewhat under control.

WakeUp

Creative Juices wrote: »

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.

it appears contained for now. but what if it happens again?...

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

and I would agree with this. we arent in a position to close land borders as we dont have any so they arent of concern to us. airports and ports is where its at for us . moving freight in and out and what not is fine but not people not at the moment not until this is at least somewhat under control.

I think we need to look at it from what is best for everybody, not just for us though.
We have no direct air routes to any of the affected countries. If someone wants to leave, they will leave weather the borders are closed or not. There's nothing to stop them continuing on to here or anywhere else.

Creative Juices

WakeUp wrote: »

it appears contained for now. but what if it happens again?...

They will contain it again and they are more capable now after learning a few lessons.
Same thing happened to Nigeria and they contained it after 20 contracted it.

WakeUp

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think we need to look at it from what is best for everybody, not just for us though.
We have no direct air routes to any of the affected countries. If someone wants to leave, they will leave weather the borders are closed or not. There's nothing to stop them continuing on to here or anywhere else.

I believe the UK have direct flights. and we share an open border with the UK. Im not sure if any planes fly direct into say Belfast but we still share an open border with them. you are right in saying there is nothing stopping them if they really want to travel. though restricting movement and denying them that direct access makes it a lot harder to do so.

WakeUp

Creative Juices wrote: »

They will contain it again and they are more capable now after learning a few lessons.
Same thing happened to Nigeria and they contained it after 20 contracted it.

but how do you know that? how can you say they will contain it again. what happens if next time Duncan number 2 infects 10 people before reaching the hospital or 20 or pick a number? there isnt any certainty in any of this.

wexie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

Do you think so though? Lets say there was a situation where no air traffic was allowed into or out of Sierra Leone and Liberia other than flights to and from...I don't know, lets say a South African military airport where all aid was directed from. Do you really think the extra inconvenience would stop humanitarian workers?

I'm not advocating closing/stopping all air traffic. Just making sure that only people that have valid business are going, and making sure that nobody who might be infected leaves.

What if the likes of ISIS decides to have a few of their lads pop over to Liberia on the way to Heathrow, JFK and CDG? As it stands there would be little to stop them from doing so? **

**slightly adapted storyline from Tom Clancy novell

Creative Juices

WakeUp wrote: »

but how do you know that? how can you say they will contain it again. what happens if next time Duncan number 2 infects 10 people before reaching the hospital or 20 or pick a number? there isnt any certainty in any of this.

You're moving the goal posts. I am saying the positives of keeping borders open far outweighs the negatives. The only negatives so far have been fully contained. If things change, the risk assessment changes.

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

I believe the UK have direct flights. and we share an open border with the UK. Im not sure if any planes fly direct into say Belfast but we still share an open border with them. you are right in saying there is nothing stopping them if they really want to travel. though restricting movement and denying them that direct access makes it a lot harder to do so.

Even in that case, the numbers of infected passengers are tiny - I don't see that it's worth the economic and humanitarian damage it will do to the affected countries - and in the medium to long term make the problem worse;


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/ebola-exit-screening-most-efficient-says-lancet-study
"Fewer than three people a month infected with the Ebola virus are likely to try to board planes out of west Africa, according to a study that says exit screening would be the most efficient way to try to prevent travellers spreading disease."

wexie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

If someone wants to leave, they will leave weather the borders are closed or not. There's nothing to stop them continuing on to here or anywhere else.

No there isn't but by restricting air travel we can make it that bit harder.

WakeUp

Creative Juices wrote: »

You're moving the goal posts. I am saying the positives of keeping borders open far outweighs the negatives. The only negatives so far have been fully contained. If things change, the risk assessment changes.

well I dont think I am moving the goal posts in fairness you said should it happen again they will contain it again. Im asking how do you know they will? if it happens again hopefully they can contain it. but how do you know with any certainty that they would or could.

ProfessorPlum

wexie wrote: »

Do you think so though? Lets say there was a situation where no air traffic was allowed into or out of Sierra Leone and Liberia other than flights to and from...I don't know, lets say a South African military airport where all aid was directed from. Do you really think the extra inconvenience would stop humanitarian workers?

I'm not advocating closing/stopping all air traffic. Just making sure that only people that have valid business are going, and making sure that nobody who might be infected leaves.

What if the likes of ISIS decides to have a few of their lads pop over to Liberia on the way to Heathrow, JFK and CDG? As it stands there would be little to stop them from doing so? **

**slightly adapted storyline from Tom Clancy novell

The problem with that is that most humanitarian aid / workers arrive on regular scheduled flights. Almost no organisation is big enough to afford to have or charter their own aircraft, any when they do it is usually for once off missions in exceptional circumstances. So designating another airport out of the zone won't work - SA is a long way from west africa btw.

I'd also say the risk of ISIS taking advantage of the economically and politically decimated environment is a lot bigger that the risk of a few of them becoming human disease vectors.

WakeUp

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Even in that case, the numbers of infected passengers are tiny - I don't see that it's worth the economic and humanitarian damage it will do to the affected countries - and in the medium to long term make the problem worse;


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/ebola-exit-screening-most-efficient-says-lancet-study
"Fewer than three people a month infected with the Ebola virus are likely to try to board planes out of west Africa, according to a study that says exit screening would be the most efficient way to try to prevent travellers spreading disease."

it only takes one person to cause an outbreak. this is ebola we dont need thousands of cases to cause potential major problems to our health services. we dont even need hundreds. we only need a few. what about the potential economic and humanitarian damage to a country that doesnt have the virus that could ensue should an outbreak happen. or is that not relevant.

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

it only takes one person to cause an outbreak. this is ebola we dont need thousands of cases to cause potential major problems to our health services. we dont even need hundreds. we only need a few. what about the potential economic and humanitarian damage to a country that doesnt have the virus that could ensue should an outbreak happen. or is that not relevant.

Outside of the three countries in West Africa, every other country (Spain, USA, Senegal and Nigeria) appear to have contained their outbreak with minimal damage. Weigh that against the risk of causing the economic and political collapse of 3 african countries, and also allowing ebola to become endemic there, thus providing a permanent human reservoir of disease. That in turn will definitely lead to further outbreaks in other countries.
It's a risk - benefit analysis - it seems like a no brainer to me, although from a purely selfish (in a national sense) I can certainly see the other side to the argument.

WakeUp

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Outside of the three countries in West Africa, every other country (Spain, USA, Senegal and Nigeria) appear to have contained their outbreak with minimal damage. Weigh that against the risk of causing the economic and political collapse of 3 african countries, and also allowing ebola to become endemic there, thus providing a permanent human reservoir of disease. That in turn will definitely lead to further outbreaks in other countries.
It's a risk - benefit analysis - it seems like a no brainer to me, although from a purely selfish (in a national sense) I can certainly see the other side to the argument.

this is going to take time to get under control. and who is to say that the next outbreak should it occur will be contained in any of those countries or any other country. we dont know that. the genie is already out of the bottle I dont think restricting the movement of people out of those countries is going to be the deciding factor as to whether this becomes endemic or not. I dont think there is anything selfish about restricting the movement of people from the infected countries I think thats common sense. maybe we should just agree to disagree on that. seems like a no brainer to me too. people in those countries you mentioned who had contact or thought to have contact with infected people had their movements restricted. they werent allowed move around. they were quarantined. yet people from the countries infected and at the center of this are still allowed to move around and travel freely.

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

this is going to take time to get under control. and who is to say that the next outbreak should it occur will be contained in any of those countries or any other country. we dont know that. the genie is already out of the bottle I dont think restricting the movement of people out of those countries is going to be the deciding factor as to whether this becomes endemic or not. I dont think there is anything selfish about restricting the movement of people from the infected countries I think thats common sense. maybe we should just agree to disagree on that. seems like a no brainer to me too. people in those countries you mentioned who had contact or thought to have contact with infected people had their movements restricted. they werent allowed move around. they were quarantined. yet people from the countries infected and at the center of this are still allowed to move around and travel freely.

People who were exposed in the US weren't quarantined - one went on a trip to buy a wedding dress, and one went on a cruise - and that's just the ones we know about! (and as far as we know, none of those primary contacts infected anybody else) People who are exposed are asked to self monitor and report any symptoms. Those that did quarantine did so voluntarily. That's very different to closing national borders.
Local restrictions on movement into and out of the 'hot' areas is a good idea, and it works, and to the extent that it can be done it is being done. That's what will kill this epidemic - local measures, not shutting off entire countries from the rest of the world. My tuppence.

Peist2007

Report on Channel 4 News (first item) just there from Freetown. Since the Channel 4 team arrived over the weekend the number of cases in Freetown has doubled. That is what the reporter on the ground in Freetown said. Under control? Does not sound like it.

Even to stop it spreading in a poverty-ridden overcrowded place like Freetown would take mammoth resources.

Story of a 10 year old orphaned boy sleeping on his own for 2 nights outside his house as he waited for a Hazmat team to collect him in an ambulance. Heartbreaking stuff

Creative Juices

WakeUp wrote: »

well I dont think I am moving the goal posts in fairness you said should it happen again they will contain it again. Im asking how do you know they will? if it happens again hopefully they can contain it. but how do you know with any certainty that they would or could.

No I don't know and I expect it to hit the west again and again. But I still don't think we should close the borders or air routes for reasons already laid out.

ceadaoin.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Report on Channel 4 News (first item) just there from Freetown. Since the Channel 4 team arrived over the weekend the number of cases in Freetown has doubled. That is what the reporter on the ground in Freetown said. Under control? Does not sound like it.

Even to stop it spreading in a poverty-ridden overcrowded place like Freetown would take mammoth resources.

Story of a 10 year old orphaned boy sleeping on his own for 2 nights outside his house as he waited for a Hazmat team to collect him in an ambulance. Heartbreaking stuff

Who said it was under control? I don't think anyone thinks that.

The fact is, most of the people who are currently affected don't have the means to hop on a plane out of there. That's why for now it is best to concentrate all efforts on getting it under control in Liberia, Sierra Leone and guinea. To do this, flights need to remain active as usual to allow the flow of aid workers and supplies in and out.

If it gets to a situation where there are millions of infected people, then maybe it is time to think about air travel restrictions. Even then, you will have an influx of people into neighboring countries via land borders. Some of those will make their way to Europe via North Africa into Spain. Unless all air travel is stopped then they will be free to fly anywhere from other countries they end up in.

The only way to stop it spreading everywhere is to stop it in Africa ASAP. Nothing else will work. That's my opinion anyway.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The only way to stop it spreading everywhere is to stop it in Africa ASAP. Nothing else will work. That's my opinion anyway.

Yup, I think we can probably all agree that if it's not contained in Africa and contained soon, that it'll find it's way over here somehow.

WakeUp

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

People who were exposed in the US weren't quarantined - one went on a trip to buy a wedding dress, and one went on a cruise - and that's just the ones we know about! (and as far as we know, none of those primary contacts infected anybody else) People who are exposed are asked to self monitor and report any symptoms. Those that did quarantine did so voluntarily. That's very different to closing national borders.
Local restrictions on movement into and out of the 'hot' areas is a good idea, and it works, and to the extent that it can be done it is being done. That's what will kill this epidemic - local measures, not shutting off entire countries from the rest of the world. My tuppence.

true and that womans bridal shop is now closed and she been told to self quarantine herself. and that cruise ship ended up having major problems. we dont even know where all the hot areas are.some of the people in these countries still dont believe ebola is real. they are still doing counter productive things like continuing to have contact with a persons body after they die to attacking the very people out there trying to help them. they need to help themselves too. and African countries need to do more be it with money or medical help or troops ( medics, engineers and such ).surely there are some African millionaires/billionaires willing to donate money. or is it the west that is expected to come up with this.

local measures are the key to containing this I agree with that sentiment but if that is to be relied upon we might be waiting a while. I know the people are scared and dont trust their governments and there is a complete lack of education and understanding in many ways and I understand that, but really they need to snap out of it a bit and start helping themselves too. ok then no air ban travel. fair enough. how about a mandatory three week quarantine for any person traveling from one of those countries??.. that might put off people who may be infected and thinking of traveling, from traveling, without restricting the movement of freight and care workers in the opposite direction. is that a fair suggestion?..these people need help without it they are in big trouble and we should do what we can. what is happening over there is truly cruel and awful. out of control is an understatement. the only way to get this under control is to try contain it and for it to burn itself out. that might be harsh but its the reality of the situation. so we also need to think about ourselves. is just how it is. (btw the driver who was part of this crew ended up contracting the virus)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZidJ36nA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMELNLTh-b0 (pt 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOkDsGPhn48(pt 3

Creative Juices

I heard on the radio that Mark Zuckerberg is donating $25m to the CDC. Fair play.

Egginacup

I'm watching a report on TV3 at the moment about "Is Ireland prepared"?

It's laughable.

You have that twit, John Kerry, saying "It's ALL HANDS ON DECK!"
This is the winner that we should believe. A genius who claimed that Assad gassed his own people (later to be found to be a pack of lies that this fool made up), a clown who stood in front of the world and claimed that he had unshakeable proof that the Russian shot down a Malaysian airliner (yet couldn't show a thing about which he was blustering), and now he's an expert in Ebola and what should be done..where, when and by whom?

I don't watch comedy shows anymore. I just watch people like this jester.

smash

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm watching a report on TV3 at the moment about "Is Ireland prepared"?

I watched it. According to TV it can be transmitted through sweat and can survive in a surface for hours.

Little CuChulainn

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm watching a report on TV3 at the moment about "Is Ireland prepared"?

It's laughable.

You have that twit, John Kerry, saying "It's ALL HANDS ON DECK!"
This is the winner that we should believe. A genius who claimed that Assad gassed his own people (later to be found to be a pack of lies that this fool made up), a clown who stood in front of the world and claimed that he had unshakeable proof that the Russian shot down a Malaysian airliner (yet couldn't show a thing about which he was blustering), and now he's an expert in Ebola and what should be done..where, when and by whom?

I don't watch comedy shows anymore. I just watch people like this jester.

I think things went pretty good with the first suspected case here.

ceadaoin.

smash wrote: »

I watched it. According to TV it can be transmitted through sweat and can survive in a surface for hours.

Those things are true.

Maximus Alexander

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Those things are true.

Are you aware of any cases where the virus has been transmitted through sweat?

Turtwig

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Those things are true.

No they aren't.

Only in the severe stages of infection does it actually appear plausible. That's the key word plausible. There's lab trials that appear to suggest it's not improbable but there's no actual case files to suggest it happens.

To use the analogy of super heated water. In a lab it can be shown that microwaved water can explode in your face. In reality, no such thing has ever happened to anyone who microwaved water - the conditions have never been that exact.

Streetwalker

Creative Juices wrote: »

I heard on the radio that Mark Zuckerberg is donating $25m to the CDC. Fair play.

He get's a lot of abuse and personally I have no time for facebook but he put his money where his mouth is here. Fair play.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

http://www.satirishpress.com/2014/10/ebola-scare-in-kildare-hundreds-to-be-tested/


What the hell?