Ebola virus outbreak

Avalynn Microscopic Rocker wrote: »

I'd choose that over racism.

:pac: Uh....riiiiight.

bloopy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTSU9w6uNc

A bit of gallows humour from CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett in relation to no travel ban - "We're screwed".
I think the more interesting part of this video is where the woman (dunno who she is) refers to a D.C. case testing positive.
Not sure what she says exactly but I think it is "If this D.C. case tests positive, I'll be doing phoners(?) all weekend".

Edit: just realised this is from a few days ago and may already be in this thread somewhere. Sorry bout that.

Oh didn't realise it was from a few days ago. That explains the comment about the D.C case. There was a suspected case admitted to a university hospital in Washington, D.C. earlier in the week or maybe last week but they tested negative a couple of days later.

Streetwalker wrote: »

I am very worried if it makes it into Ireland, our health systems are third world in parts.

You have clearly never been to a public hospital or engaged in the health systems in third world.

old_aussie wrote: »

If ebola can only be spread by contact with someones body fluids, is an atom of moisture in the air from someone coughing going to pass the disease?

Just like the flu or common cold is spread.

No, it doesn't spread like the common cold or flu.
"An atom of moisture in the air"? Can you see how that makes no sense?

The debate about whether or not to restrict travel to and from certain African countries is all moot at the moment in my opinion.

It's appears obvious that all the First-World countries have adopted a universal policy on this (as they do with most potentially global crises). I say potential because as yet its unknown how this will develop.

The policy adopted appears to be the wait-and-see what happens approach. No one Country wants to risk being solely responsible for another economic meltdown - which is a risk of restricting free travel and necessarily trade.

Instead they appear to have taken the decision to react only if there is clear reason to act, and then I believe, if such arises they will restrict travel/trade.

I'd say that the most likely trigger for an escalation of the situation to enable a Government to make such a decision would be something in the nature of an actual outbreak (perhaps even on a small scale) within a First-World nation (most probably European - in the context of European restrictions).

I'd say even if 5-6 cases pop up in each of all the EU countries, that won't be enough to cause a decision to restrict travel - as I think the general consensus (rightly or wrongly) is that that type of a situation is something which is controllable, and its really all about the ability to Control.

Of course it remains to be seen if even the two First-World cases we are aware of at present have been properly controlled - the indications are that in both cases - there were mistakes made (perhaps) and the process of ensuring to contain the Virus was not either properly designed, or wasn't properly adhered to.

In any event - in relation to those 2 cases, we will all have a much better idea of the impact of such in 2-3 weeks when the incubaton period has expired. Until then we just have to hope.

ryanf1 wrote: »

The irish public hospital system couldn't and wouldn't cope with it, they simply don't have the staff.

Couldn't or wouldn't cope with what though? Thousands of cases? Sure, we'd be completely overwhelmed. A few isolated cases? Of course we could. I don't know where the line is between manageable and uncontrollable, but I have every confidence that the numbers of cases that we are likely to see here will be manageable. Of course, if the epidemic in West Africa continues to spread at the rate it currently is, that projection becomes an awful lot worse. Which is why resources are going to have to be poured into affected area to gain control. Shutting borders and restricting air travel from 'Africa' will not solve this problem in the medium to long term.

This is how I see it .

1) More people become infected.

2) Some will get treatment and some of those will survive.

3) Some won't survive because they won't be strong enough even with treatment.

4) Others who probably could survive won't be able to get treatment as the health service becomes innundated .

5) So those people along with all the others will die.

6) Now the general population is at risk so many more will contract.

7) Thousands of untreated Ebola victims will roam the streets desperate for help

8) Many will die on the streets but not before infecting even more people.

9) A state of emergency and Martial law will be imposed.

10) At this stage camps will be set up to cope but of course all too late, in effect we will witness a Zombie Apocalypse .


Sorry if that all sounds a bit negative but I honestly believe it could play out like that unless we take drastic action NOW.

NauP wrote: »

Heading to Morocco via Heathrow in early November. Not sure whether to cancel or not......

Morocco is as safe as anywhere else right now apart obviously from the West African Countries.

Of course if I were you I wouldn't make a final decision until much closer to the flight date.

The incubation period on this is up to 3 weeks. There could be cases imminent in Morocco, or other Northern African Countries - but as yet there's no reason to panic.

The reality is that at the current rate of growth this thing is doubling every month approximately - though it actually appears like the period of doubling is speeding up - which would of course be expected and a logical growth pattern.

I personally don't think by November there will be a surge (should the failure to Control it in West Africa continue), but 2015 will be a different case altogether (particularly for the continent of Africa) should this Virus not be gotten under control in the meantime.

Avalynn Microscopic Rocker wrote: »

I'd choose that over racism.

Then you're an idiot, I seriously hope you are joking.