Ebola virus outbreak

08-10-2014 07:51AM

hey,

I don't want to sound like a crank but why did HIV and now ebola start in Africa? with all the jungle in Sth America, why not something similar?.
Not being a theorist of the worst kind but there are some people out there who believe both are man made. The two americans that went home all of a sudden get a trial drug and are back to normal?. I know they would have got the best care but you either survive or you don't, it's 10% survival rate no?
so where's this drug then? admittedly I have only kind of followed the story but now take an interest in it as it's closer to home. The scary thing is that we were told it's contracted close contact, using utensils, towels, skin contact etc. Some official now tells us it could be airborne now, or could mutate!!

FionnK86 · 08-10-2014 08:06AM

rusty cole wrote: »

hey,

I don't want to sound like a crank but why did HIV and now ebola start in Africa? with all the jungle in Sth America, why not something similar?.
Not being a theorist of the worst kind but there are some people out there who believe both are man made. The two americans that went home all of a sudden get a trial drug and are back to normal?. I know they would have got the best care but you either survive or you don't, it's 10% survival rate no?
so where's this drug then? admittedly I have only kind of followed the story but now take an interest in it as it's closer to home. The scary thing is that we were told it's contracted close contact, using utensils, towels, skin contact etc. Some official now tells us it could be airborne now, or could mutate!!

Their are numerous strains of disease/viruses across the world, even in the jungles of South America. However, the conditions the people living in some parts of Africa result in disease spreading fast. They live in overcrowded conditions with little access to clean water,or a doctor. There is nothing to stop this happening, in say, the favela's of Brazil, it just hasn't happened yet.

It reminds me of the SARS Pandemic. The only difference being the people of West Africa are more susceptible to disease with their poor access to healthcare.

Egginacup · 08-10-2014 09:29AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You start your post by saying you don't want to sound like a crank, then immediately take the crank angle. There are 'some people' who believe both are man made, yes. Cranks. 2 people recovered from a disease while being treated in a country with better healthcare? Stop the press!

This strain isn't 10% survival rate, it's closer to 50 if I remember correctly. 2 people surviving is about as unlikely as a coin coming up tails twice in a row: i.e, not very.

Mutation is always a risk with any virus, this isn't something new. Please, look up the facts. Most of your post is scaremongering and conspiracy theories that have been addressed in many places already.

What?

Your grasp of probabilities is pretty weak. Toss a coin twice and there is no good likelihood that it will be heads twice, tails twice or head and tail. Therefore it's as likely to be tails twice as any other combination. That's not "not very" likely. Toss it 1000 times and it's safe to say that it will be about 500 heads and 500 tails.

And you're the one who's doing the scare-mongering with your expert knowledge of diseases and mutations.

08-10-2014 09:36AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You start your post by saying you don't want to sound like a crank, then immediately take the crank angle. There are 'some people' who believe both are man made, yes. Cranks. 2 people recovered from a disease while being treated in a country with better healthcare? Stop the press!

This strain isn't 10% survival rate, it's closer to 50 if I remember correctly. 2 people surviving is about as unlikely as a coin coming up tails twice in a row: i.e, not very.

Mutation is always a risk with any virus, this isn't something new. Please, look up the facts. Most of your post is scaremongering and conspiracy theories that have been addressed in many places already.

it's between 25 and 90% so we may be both right depending then eh!!
scaremongering?? the post was more a gauge for info from those who know more. I did say I'd only just taken an interest, my FACTS were taken from sensationalist sky news, oh silly me turning on the news and not consulting greys anatomy here!! or the CDC!! lets hope your doctorate is not in actually medicine because your bedside manner needs work.

bucketybuck · 08-10-2014 09:40AM

FullblownRose wrote: »

They've no plans to begin any of that, though. It would be ''too costly''.

They have no plans to begin airport screening not because of cost, but because it doesn't work!

08-10-2014 09:46AM

have a look at sky news if you want to see real scaremongering, headline reads as follows

Hospitals in four cities are prepared to deal with a "surge" in cases, as David Cameron chairs a COBRA meeting on the virus.

FFS, what's the motivation there, surge is a bit strong eh?? how will there be a surge?? Fookin media eh.. not prepared to deal with any possible case/cases? a "surge"!! who rights this crap, isacc Asimov!!

FullblownRose · 08-10-2014 09:47AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

They have no plans to begin airport screening not because of cost, but because it doesn't work!

That is debateable, after it was rejected the cost was specifically mentioned.

bucketybuck · 08-10-2014 09:52AM

FullblownRose wrote: »

That is debateable, after it was rejected the cost was specifically mentioned.

Cost may have been mentioned, it always is, but it doesn't matter what it costs and those in charge know this full well.

Airport screening will not identify people carrying the Ebola virus in its dormant state and it is a complete waste of time pretending it will. Airport screening would be a complete waste of money and if it is ever implemented it would simply be a TSA style pandering to the masses sideshow.

08-10-2014 09:58AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Except it isn't between 25 and 90% for this strain, it's around 50%.

Sorry, I might have picked you up wrong. Your post looked a bit like some I've seen from conspiracy theorists putting across 'other people's' ideas. You immediately took the conspiracy angle. I also highly doubt sky news put emphasis on how unusual it is for the two americans to recover (spoiler: it really isn't).

I had to look that up, I don't know about variety of strains but if you say so ok. That's ok if you picked me up wrong, no worries.
Oh of course, sky news are the worst, truth never sells papers. you seem ton know a bit about it, in all seriousness, can this go airborne?

FullblownRose · 08-10-2014 09:58AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Cost may have been mentioned, it always is, but it doesn't matter what it costs and those in charge know this full well.

Airport screening will not identify people carrying the Ebola virus in its dormant state and it is a complete waste of time pretending it will. Airport screening would be a complete waste of money and if it is ever implemented it would simply be a TSA style pandering to the masses sideshow.

Indeed, it would be too costly, all things considered. Rather than pandering, though those in charge need to be seen to be taking proper precautions and implementing perfectly workable strategies, instead of making glaring errors as some have already made. Public cofidence isn't low for no reason. People with expertise have already said you can't really over react when it comes to dealing with ebola. Under reaction is no better than scaremongering.

davo2001 · 08-10-2014 11:49AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well don't take my word on it, I'm definitely not an expert I've just looked into it out of curiosity. Sky news are good at the old sensationalism all right. I do remember seeing it was unlikely to go airborne, although I can't remember why exactly. I would say it's a possibility, although there's no reason to assume it will.

Someone who knows more about it might come along and tell me I'm totally wrong on that though :pac:

Ebola has the same chance of going airborne as AIDS. While technically it is possible, it will not happen.

WakeUp · 08-10-2014 01:24PM

apart from the ethical and moral reasons against moving infected patients around and placing otherwise healthy people/population at unjust risk because of them, if any other reason was needed as to why this practice should be halted immediately this is it. doing this is playing with fire.
_________________________________________________________________________

Spanish Ebola case: 'I am due to treat the patient. But I have no idea what to do':

A doctor who will treat Maria Teresa Romero Ramos, the Spanish nurse who has contracted Ebola, has launched a scathing attack on his country's training procedures

A senior doctor at the Madrid hospital where the Spanish nurse infected with Ebola is being treated has warned that staff are not sufficiently trained to deal with the virus.
His warning comes as the sixth person in Spain was put into quarantine on Wednesday morning.

Dr Santiago Yus, a specialist in intensive care with more than 30 years experience at the hospital where the six isolated patients are being treated, claimed medics have received only minimal training.

"Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow I will be expected to treat the Ebola patient and nobody has even taught me to put on the protective suit," he said in an interview with Spain's daily El Mundo newspaper.
"I am not ready, I am not trained. And it's the same with my colleagues."

He said that he and other doctors had been given a ten-minute briefing on management of Ebola patients and shown some photographs on a wall. Two months ago they were given a demonstration on how to put on the protective suit.
"A doctor and a nurse put the suit on and took it off. The training was and is absolutely insufficient," he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11148579/Spanish-Ebola-case-I-am-due-to-treat-the-patient.-But-I-have-no-idea-what-to-do.html

this is beyond stupid its worse than that if thats possible. it is willfully negligent and is/has put other people at risk.

Streetwalker · 08-10-2014 01:31PM

davo2001 wrote: »

Ebola has the same chance of going airborne as AIDS. While technically it is possible, it will not happen.

Isnt it true that if someone with Ebola sneezed in your face or even near you the virus can be spread, because that's airborne isn't it?

ProfessorPlum · 08-10-2014 01:42PM

Streetwalker wrote: »

Isnt it true that if someone with Ebola sneezed in your face or even near you the virus can be spread, because that's airborne isn't it?

In the same way we wouldn't consider a two year old kid who can jump 'airborne'.
No, the virus is not airborne.

» What is airborne transmission?
Airborne transmission refers to situations where droplet nuclei (residue from evaporated droplets) or dust particles containing microorganisms can remain suspended in air for long periods of time. These organisms must be capable of surviving for long periods of time outside the body and must be resistant to drying. Airborne transmission allows organisms to enter the upper and lower respiratory tracts. Fortunately, only a limited number of diseases are capable of airborne transmission.

Red Pepper · 08-10-2014 02:09PM

Ebola is not designed to attack the respiratory system. It attacks blood vessels and the liver. Even if the virus were to somehow move to the respiratory system, which would involve a huge mutation, that still doesn't mean it would go airborne. There's no known precedent for a virus to change in that way. The UN's ebola chief (who is not a doctor or an ebola researcher), recently said the possibility of an airborne mutation shouldn't be ruled out. That was an irresponsible to say, I imagine he was looking to motivate governments to get more involed. Viruses do mutate but there is zero chance of ebola mutating into a respiratory and airborne virus. Zero. People are wasting their time even bringing it up.

And Plum is right, a jumping 2 year old kid is also not airborne. :rolleyes:

ceadaoin. · 08-10-2014 02:26PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

50% or so chance to live or die. Equal, or close enough each way. If there's a 50% chance of someone surviving, it really shouldn't be all that surprising if 2 people do so. I'm not saying it's a particularly sound argument, it was just illustrating my point.

Also, what? I never claimed to have expert knowledge. Not sure how I'm scaremongering either.

Edit: Explain how exactly my grasp of probabilities is pretty weak? The odds of a coin coming up heads twice in a row is around 25%, which really, really isn't that unlikely. You contradict yourself in that sentence, by saying it's just as likely as any other combination. Exactly my point. It isn't an unusual outcome.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

In the same way we wouldn't consider a two year old kid who can jump 'airborne'.
No, the virus is not airborne.

» What is airborne transmission?
Airborne transmission refers to situations where droplet nuclei (residue from evaporated droplets) or dust particles containing microorganisms can remain suspended in air for long periods of time. These organisms must be capable of surviving for long periods of time outside the body and must be resistant to drying. Airborne transmission allows organisms to enter the upper and lower respiratory tracts. Fortunately, only a limited number of diseases are capable of airborne transmission.

It's not airborne by the proper medical definition. Particles of it can't remain in the air alone. However, particles can remain in the air within liquid for up to 90 mins. Most people would consider that to be airborne. So saying that you have to touch someone with the virus to get it is untrue. That's why the CDC themselves say that being within 3 feet of an infected individual for an extended period is enough to be at risk at infection.

FullblownRose · 08-10-2014 02:31PM

Streetwalker wrote: »

Isnt it true that if someone with Ebola sneezed in your face or even near you the virus can be spread, because that's airborne isn't it?

Yes it is true that ebola can be spread if an infected person sneezes onto someone and saliva or mucus gets onto the person's face.
It's not classed as airborne, but aerosolised. It would be much more contagious if it *was* airborne, but it's not.

WakeUp · 08-10-2014 02:45PM

Red Pepper wrote: »

Ebola is not designed to attack the respiratory system. It attacks blood vessels and the liver. Even if the virus were to somehow move to the respiratory system, which would involve a huge mutation, that still doesn't mean it would go airborne. There's no known precedent for a virus to change in that way. The UN's ebola chief (who is not a doctor or an ebola researcher), recently said the possibility of an airborne mutation shouldn't be ruled out. That was an irresponsible to say, I imagine he was looking to motivate governments to get more involed. Viruses do mutate but there is zero chance of ebola mutating into a respiratory and airborne virus. Zero. People are wasting their time even bringing it up.

And Plum is right, a jumping 2 year old kid is also not airborne. :rolleyes:

ebola is a systemic infection. it attacks every tissue and organ in the human body constantly except bones and skeletal muscles. yourself and plum are right though about it not being airborne as in being capable of attaching receptors to the upper respiratory system and entering the body that way. it cant.

ProfessorPlum · 08-10-2014 03:15PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's not airborne by the proper medical definition. Particles of it can't remain in the air alone. However, particles can remain in the air within liquid for up to 90 mins. Most people would consider that to be airborne. So saying that you have to touch someone with the virus to get it is untrue. That's why the CDC themselves say that being within 3 feet of an infected individual for an extended period is enough to be at risk at infection.

To be fair, if you're going to go around saying something is 'airborne' and I'm not saying you are, you might as well use the proper meaning of the word. Otherwise what you say is meaningless andikely to give rise to the kind of panic and scare mongering that is just unhelpful.
Is seems that Ebola transmission is by direct contact, and likely indirect contact and also droplet transmission in rarer circumstances. But it's not airborne. Thank god.

littlemac1980 · 08-10-2014 03:21PM

Here's a link to what is (in my opinion) the best graphical map representing the spread of this Virus to date. I haven't found a better one yet - so If anyone has a link to other such useful sources - please post them.

http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline

ceadaoin. · 08-10-2014 03:27PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair, if you're going to go around saying something is 'airborne' and I'm not saying you are, you might as well use the proper meaning of the word. Otherwise what you say is meaningless andikely to give rise to the kind of panic and scare mongering that is just unhelpful.
Is seems that Ebola transmission is by direct contact, and likely indirect contact and also droplet transmission in rarer circumstances. But it's not airborne. Thank god.

I wouldn't say it was airborne because it isn't. But there is limited scope for transmission through the air in certain circumstances and I don't think that is being talked about enough. I think that when they are talking about it they should be more clear about how it is transmitted. When you say it isn't airborne, most people assume that there is no way to become infected other than touching bodily fluids.

Thomas Eric Duncan has died in Dallas. It was just announced here on the TV as a special broadcast. Not surprising really. It seemed his infection was quite advanced by the time he was admitted to hospital.

ProfessorPlum · 08-10-2014 03:38PM

I think the point I'm trying to make is that when people talk about a disease being 'airborne' they often start with Hollywood style images of Armageddon. Or Contagion or whatever that film/films were called. That is unhelpful and inaccurate. On the other hand, if we stick to proper definitions, we can all understand ie droplet spread, for example.

Yes just saw that the hospital announced he had died. I wonder would Mr Duncan have faired better had he been admitted the first time he presented. Could be interesting from a litigation pov, as well as the unnecessary risk his contacts were put at. I'm sure the hospital legal department are very busy.

FlashR2D2 · 08-10-2014 03:38PM

Airbourne by definaition means to fly, be in flight, propelled through the air.

Gael23 · 08-10-2014 03:46PM

The US victim has expired

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/us-ebola-patient-dies-as-states-monitors-travellers-for-virus-644628.html

I am pie · 08-10-2014 03:48PM

ryanf1 wrote: »

The US victim has expired

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/us-ebola-patient-dies-as-states-monitors-travellers-for-virus-644628.html

Expired!

Died. He is dead.

ceadaoin. · 08-10-2014 03:50PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the point I'm trying to make is that when people talk about a disease being 'airborne' they often start with Hollywood style images of Armageddon. Or Contagion or whatever that film/films were called. That is unhelpful and inaccurate. On the other hand, if we stick to proper definitions, we can all understand ie droplet spread, for example.

Yes just saw that the hospital announced he had died. I wonder would Mr Duncan have faired better had he been admitted the first time he presented. Could be interesting from a litigation pov, as well as the unnecessary risk his contacts were put at. I'm sure the hospital legal department are very busy.

I'm sure the hospital will protect themselves very well. Maybe the fact that he didn't disclose his contact with an ebola infected person would be in their favor.

Red Pepper · 08-10-2014 03:50PM

I am pie wrote: »

Expired!

Died. He is dead.

we know

FlashR2D2 · 08-10-2014 03:57PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm sure the hospital will protect themselves very well..

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit....its the only way to be sure!

ceadaoin. · 08-10-2014 04:00PM

FlashR2D2 wrote: »

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit....its the only way to be sure!

Ok but I meant legally

WakeUp · 08-10-2014 04:13PM

Ebola: Soldiers from Northern Ireland sent to Sierra Leone to help curb virus outbreak as first patient diagnosed in US dies:

Soldiers from Northern Ireland are to be sent to Sierra Leone to help curb the Ebola outbreak which has spread through the country

it's understood some 40 troops have already arrived in the country.

The soldiers travelling to Sierra Leone are based at Palace Barracks in Holywood, Co Down - belonging to the The Royal Scots Borders 1st Battalion.

The announcement comes as Northern Ireland's Public Health Agency said it was preparing to tackle Ebola, should the deadly virus reach the Northern Ireland.

Speaking today, commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Matt Munro said there was a clear risk of soldiers contracting the virus - but the risk was "very low".
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/ebola-soldiers-from-northern-ireland-sent-to-sierra-leone-to-help-curb-virus-outbreak-as-first-patient-diagnosed-in-us-dies-30649354.html?

the British musnt have enough troops on their island for this task so they had to send ones from our island. lets hope the British get it right.

Ebola virus outbreak

Comments