ebola

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Well...let me tell you.

As the postman was dumping spam in my mailbox, he managed to distract me with this Ebola story.

I'm not sure I understand.
Are you saying that it's accept for you and other conspiracy theorists to scaremonger because you don't make a profit from it?

Cork boy 55

jh79 wrote: »

So is there an actual conspiracy or are we just having a general chat about Ebola?

Ebola is a manmade bio-weapon engineered by the NWO to reduce populations levels.

MadYaker

gozunda wrote: »

Fixed that ...

MRSA is entirely different to ebola.

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand.
Are you saying that it's accept for you and other conspiracy theorists to scaremonger because you don't make a profit from it?

Why am I a "Conspiracy Theorist" ?
Where does it say I believed there to be a conspiracy?

Do tobacco companies sell cigarettes to help people?
Why should the motives of vaccine companies be any different?

Incidentally, the ZMapp serum is made from tobacco leaves.

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Why am I a "Conspiracy Theorist" ?
Where does it say I believed there to be a conspiracy?

Then remove the word "other" from my post.

You and conspiracy theorists are making wild, scary claims about ebola which are not strictly supported.
Why is this not scaremongering?

Why is what the media does, making wild scary claims about ebola (or other outbreaks), called scaremongering and why is it bad?

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

Then remove the word "other" from my post.

You and conspiracy theorists are making wild, scary claims about ebola which are not strictly supported.
Why is this not scaremongering?

Quote me because I think you'll find I'm not scaremongering.

I'm not worried about Ebola.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Then remove the word "other" from my post.

You and conspiracy theorists are making wild, scary claims about ebola which are not strictly supported.
Why is this not scaremongering?

Why is what the media does, making wild scary claims about ebola (or other outbreaks), called scaremongering and why is it bad?

Conspiracy theorists now attacking Ebola Isolation centre ...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Armed-men-attack-Liberia-Ebola-isolation-centre-29-patients-flee/articleshow/40347460.cms

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Quote me because I think you'll find I'm not scaremongering.

I'm not worried about Ebola.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I could be coughing over everyone. Maybe I infect the doctor and everyone that visits the doctor starts inhaling his mucus..who the hell knows?
...
How do you know? A person can get on a bus for a 4 hour journey and everyone on that bus will be infected.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

If I had Ebola, what would be the point in going to my GP? To infect everyone in the waiting room?

You could be waiting hours in some GP clinics and by the time you're seen, you could already have infected many other people.

.....

Eventually, Ebola will get to Ireland and it's entirely the fault of authorities because instead of taking precautions and restricting travel from affected areas until the virus is contained, they're merely providing "travel advice"

So again, what's the difference between what you are saying and the scaremongering you think is going on?

Ipso

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Ebola is a manmade bio-weapon engineered by the NWO to reduce populations levels.

It's taking a long time to work. Between this, swine flu and every other attempt at population control, it looks like we're safe enough.

Ipso

For anyone wanting to avoid big pharma cures, you can try this homeopathic one.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/12/homeopathy-for-ebola-virus-disease-too-irresponsible-for-even-mike-adams/

gozunda

MadYaker wrote: »

MRSA is entirely different to ebola.

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

According to this report from the HSE

http://www.hpsc.ie/A-Z/MicrobiologyAntimicrobialResistance/EuropeanAntimicrobialResistanceSurveillanceSystemEARSS/ReferenceandEducationalResourceMaterial/SaureusMRSA/LatestSaureusMRSAdata/File,3990,en.pdf


"The annual trend in MRSA proportions and rates have been downwards since 2006 and as of 2013 were at their lowest since surveillance began"

If I am reading it right there are around 200-300 cases a year which seems fairly small to me.

Possible case in Donegal

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0821/638520-ebola/

MadYaker

gozunda wrote: »

? Really! I never said it was similar btw

As I said previously in reply to your post (parentheses mine) - The Irish health system (regularly fails to) deal with less dangerous but far more contagious ( but much less deadly ) pathogens than ebola on a daily basis...(see MRSA for example)

ie MRSA is not considered as not as dangerous as long as you're healthy, your body can easily keep it in check. but in certain circumstances like hospitals it does appears to be more contagious and guess what? The HSE is failing to control of spread MRSA at the present time. Let's hope Ebola really doesn't get here at all because with the way hospitals are managed in this country it would be a bloody disaster imo.

Read the report posted above. 200 - 300 cases a year of MRSA in Irish hospitals, constant decline since records of MRSA cases began.

You are using MRSA as an example to substantiate your argument that HSE would be unable to deal with ebola and I'm pointing out that it's nonsense for 2 reasons. 1: the HSE have MRSA largely under control and 2: MRSA is a rapidly evolving and very contagious antibiotic resistant bacteria. Ebola on the other hand is a far less contagious virus that is a lot easier to contain.

Harold Weiss

jh79 wrote: »

Possible case in Donegal

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0821/638520-ebola/

Probably BS.

NIMAN

Definitely BS.

gozunda

MadYaker wrote: »

Read the report posted above. 200 - 300 cases a year of MRSA in Irish hospitals, constant decline since records of MRSA cases began.

You are using MRSA as an example to substantiate your argument that HSE would be unable to deal with ebola and I'm pointing out that it's nonsense for 2 reasons. 1: the HSE have MRSA largely under control and 2: MRSA is a rapidly evolving and very contagious antibiotic resistant bacteria. Ebola on the other hand is a far less contagious virus that is a lot easier to contain.

NOTE: 1. MRSA is still a significant problem in many Irish hospitals. It is believed it has been endemic in Irish hospitals for at least 40 years - it has not been eradicated and has also mutated into more virulent and less treatable strains. It has been suggested that this has been at least partially as a result of poor disease detection and management in the past. Ireland has been found to have one of the largest prevalence of MRSA in Europe.

http://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/research-on-decade-of-mrsa-samples-in-irish-hospitals-may-help-prepare-for-potential-emergence-of-new-mrsa-strains/4623#.U_5bHpUg_IU

2. The current outbreak of Ebola is by far the largest outbreak to date and appears to be increasingly defying containment and appears to be more contagious than previously thought. It also kills over half of all people who contract the disease
See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11058052/Ebola-sufferer-William-Pooley-did-not-take-risks-while-working-with-infected-patients.html


Short and curlies is that HSE haven't been able to properly manage MRSA so it is unlikely that they would to do any better with a serious disease such as Ebola. Believe whatever 'nonsense' you wish. That's your opinion. My personal experience of potential disease control in a number of Irish hospitals is vastly different.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

NOTE: 1. MRSA is still a significant problem in many Irish hospitals. It is believed it has been endemic in Irish hospitals for at least 40 years - it has not been eradicated and has also mutated into more virulent and less treatable strains. It has been suggested that this has been at least partially as a result of poor disease detection and management in the past. Ireland has been found to have one of the largest prevalence of MRSA in Europe.

http://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/research-on-decade-of-mrsa-samples-in-irish-hospitals-may-help-prepare-for-potential-emergence-of-new-mrsa-strains/4623#.U_5bHpUg_IU

2. The current outbreak of Ebola is by far the largest outbreak to date and appears to be increasingly defying containment and appears to be more contagious than previously thought. It also kills over half of all people who contract the disease
See:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11058052/Ebola-sufferer-William-Pooley-did-not-take-risks-while-working-with-infected-patients.html


Short and curlies is that HSE haven't been able to properly manage MRSA so it is unlikely that they would to do any better with a serious disease such as Ebola. Believe whatever 'nonsense' you wish. That's your opinion. My personal experience of potential disease control in a number of Irish hospitals is vastly different.

MRSA cases are at their lowest since records began according to the report linked earlier.

MRSA is more contagious than ebola as far as I know.

gozunda

jh79 wrote: »

MRSA cases are at their lowest since records began according to the report linked earlier.

A. MRSA is still around after some 40 years and some strains have become even more virulent

jh79 wrote: »

MRSA is more contagious than ebola as far as I know.

B. See reports posted on Ebola outbreak listed above ....

I still don't rate the HSE record for disease containment or management.

FullblownRose

Took this from the article someone posted about quack cures..this implies it's quite possble to catch ebola from a minute amount of fluid, a trace of it in a drink of water, even if some of the water isnt ingested, but spilt onto a surface where someone then puts their hand and picks up a trace and wipes it on their eyes or nose.

''OK, now. I know we skeptics joke about homeopathic remedies being diluted so much that it’s unlikely that a single molecule is left. So this shouldn’t be a problem, right? After all, what a homeopath who does this should have left is just water, right? Well, I wouldn’t count on it. All it takes is for one or a few Ebola virus particles to cling to the surface of the bottle. The bigger problem, though, is this: What do you do with all the water being used to dilute the Ebola virus? The water discarded during the first few dilutions is likely to be chock full of virus, given how much virus can be found in the blood and secretions of victims. Imagine the potential for accidental self-infection or infection of others if that water deposits Ebola on surfaces where people can touch it, get it on their skin, and then, as people so frequently do, get it on their mucus membranes by either rubbing their eyes, picking their nose, or eating something by hand. It’s insanity! Also, the thought of striking a glass bottle containing Ebola virus-laced water doesn’t sound like the most brilliant plan in the world. What if the bottle breaks? Plastic’s only little better.''

FullblownRose

FullblownRose wrote: »

Took this from the article someone posted about quack cures..this implies it's quite possble to catch ebola from a minute amount of fluid, a trace of it in a drink of water, even if some of the water isnt ingested, but spilt onto a surface where someone then puts their hand and picks up a trace and wipes it on their eyes or nose.

''OK, now. I know we skeptics joke about homeopathic remedies being diluted so much that it’s unlikely that a single molecule is left. So this shouldn’t be a problem, right? After all, what a homeopath who does this should have left is just water, right? Well, I wouldn’t count on it. All it takes is for one or a few Ebola virus particles to cling to the surface of the bottle. The bigger problem, though, is this: What do you do with all the water being used to dilute the Ebola virus? The water discarded during the first few dilutions is likely to be chock full of virus, given how much virus can be found in the blood and secretions of victims. Imagine the potential for accidental self-infection or infection of others if that water deposits Ebola on surfaces where people can touch it, get it on their skin, and then, as people so frequently do, get it on their mucus membranes by either rubbing their eyes, picking their nose, or eating something by hand. It’s insanity! Also, the thought of striking a glass bottle containing Ebola virus-laced water doesn’t sound like the most brilliant plan in the world. What if the bottle breaks? Plastic’s only little better.''

It is not suggesting that a tiny amount would be enough just that process of diluting it would be extremely risky for the homeopath.

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

It is not suggesting that a tiny amount would be enough just that process of diluting it would be extremely risky for the homeopath.

If the homeoath is dealing with a tiny amount it must then be risky? Why mention the spillage on the surface, though?

FullblownRose

FullblownRose wrote: »

If the homeoath is dealing with a tiny amount it must then be risky? Why mention the spillage on the surface, though?

As risky as any virus i suppose,

Would you trust a homeopath with a deadly virus in an office beside a health food shop?

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

As risky as any virus i suppose,

Would you trust a homeopath with a deadly virus in an office beside a health food shop?

I haven't made my point very clearly.It's been repeatedly stated that Ebola is *not* as risky as most viruses because it isn't as contagious. There's precious little information about how it is transmitted and how long it remains dangerous when the fluid such as mucus is expelled onto surfaces.
The comment about the danger of spillage makes me wonder how long the virus is dangerous in any bodily fluid expelled onto a surface or person.

I don't know whether I'd trust the homepoath experimenting with the virus- for one thing, if it is difficult to catch except by direct contact with vomit, semen, blood or sweat then why should it be a concern what the homeopath tries?

I'm nt trying to be smart so to speak...

FullblownRose

FullblownRose wrote: »

I haven't made my point very clearly.It's been repeatedly stated that Ebola is *not* as risky as most viruses because it isn't as contagious. There's precious little information about how it is transmitted and how long it remains dangerous when the fluid such as mucus is expelled onto surfaces.
The comment about the danger of spillage makes me wonder how long the virus is dangerous in any bodily fluid expelled onto a surface or person.

I don't know whether I'd trust the homepoath experimenting with the virus- for one thing, if it is difficult to catch except by direct contact with vomit, semen, blood or sweat then why should it be a concern what the homeopath tries?

I'm nt trying to be smart so to speak...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

It is dangerous for homeopath s to handle because they are not trained to handle anything more dangerous than water and a container.

FullblownRose

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

It is dangerous for homeopath s to handle because they are not trained to handle anything more dangerous than water and a container.

Irrespective of what theyre trained to handle, the issue is how dangerous is it in that form, diluted in water, because if its dangerous for them its dangerous for anyne coming into contact with it in the same form.

FullblownRose

FullblownRose wrote: »

Irrespective of what theyre trained to handle, the issue is how dangerous is it in that form, diluted in water, because if its dangerous for them its dangerous for anyne coming into contact with it in the same form.

Is anyone disputing this? But why would you be handling ebola contaminated water?

enno99

stuff.hunter wrote: »

here you go, folks...
a priest which came back from Africa died in Spain.... ebola virus reached Europe

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29514920

The Spanish health minister has confirmed that a nurse who treated a victim of Ebola in Madrid has tested positive for the disease.

The nurse is said to be the first person in the current outbreak known to have contracted Ebola outside Africa.

The Spanish nurse is in a stable condition, Reuters quoted health officials as saying. She started to feel ill last week when she was on holiday

So a nurse has been infected with Ebola despite wearing protection and knowing what she was dealing with



picture shows the type of protection they employed

degrassinoel

"when she was on holiday" - that's the scary bit.

RichardoKhan

enno99 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29514920



So a nurse has been infected with Ebola despite wearing protection and knowing what she was dealing with



picture shows the type of protection they employed

Up to now I thought we'd manage this ok in Europe given treatment & sanitary conditions. This is a very worrying development. Anyone any info as to how the nurse caught this IE did she disregard protocols etc or is it more likely we are no tbeing told the full truth regards how it spreads.
Terrible for the nurse & her family BUT I really do hope that she admits to breaking protocol or it lapsed/compromised somehow.....