Ebola virus outbreak

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 01:36PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

You suggested that repatriation was being carried out due to better facilities. I'm saying that is not the case. If a British doctor catches ebola in Liberia he/she will be transferred to Britain because they are British and the British Government will be expected by the British people to look after their own. Repatriation = being sent back to your home country. The fact that the facilities are better in Britain than Liberia is of course true, but not the primary driving factor in effecting repatriation. Quite simple really.

Really!!! So explain to me why the British Government does't repatriate every other person who gets sick / injured abroad? Can we expect the British government to repatriate Britains who become sick with Ebola in the US, and are receiving treatment in US hospitals. Because 'Britian is expected to look after their own'

Do you think Liberia should have repatriated their national who became sick in the US? Because medical facilities are not the primary driving factor.

Do you think Liberia should have repatriated their national who became sick in Nigeria? Because medical facilities are not the primary driving factor.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 01:37PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

that feels better now, doesn't it.

For someone so smart, you do miss a lot

Spring Onion · 13-10-2014 01:39PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

For someone so smart, you do miss a lot

I cant do this anymore, can you respond to Prof Plum on this line of thought, I am quitting. Best of luck.

littlemac1980 · 13-10-2014 01:41PM

Here's an interesting article regarding the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/269775/speedreads-cdcs-protocol-breach-explanation-for-texas-ebola-case-smacks-of-scapegoating-critics-say

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nurses-reject-scapegoat-accusations-after-cdc-head-blames-protocol-breach-for-dallas-nurse-infection-of-ebola-127957/

It appears that there is an amount of "backlash" arising from the conclusion of the CDC - that the nurse must have broken protocol in order for the infection to have occurred, i.e. she is being referred to as a "Scapegoat"

The other possibility - and the one that the CDC don't want to consider is that the protocol that they put in place, was in fact followed, but was in some way defective - meaning that they are to blame for this infection.

The first article mentions that the training may have been insufficient, and that the lack of oversight procedures in relation to the implementation of the safety and containment protocols is something that may have caused this infection.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 01:43PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really!!! So explain to me why the British Government does't repatriate every other person who gets sick / injured abroad?

Because Ebola is quite serious apparently.

[QUOTE=ProfessorPlum;92592781Can we expect the British government to repatriate Britains who become sick with Ebola in the US, and are receiving treatment in US hospitals. Because 'Britian is expected to look after their own'[/QUOTE]

Hasnt arisen yet but i would imagine they could come to an arrangement, being allies and all.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Do you think Liberia should have repatriated their national who became sick in the US? Because medical facilities are not the primary driving factor.

"...not the primary driving factor" implies that there are other factors. One of those would be the standard of medical care in Liberia which seems non-existent. So, no. How is Britain or Spain repatriating a doctor and Liberia repatriating a citizen the same thing?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Do you think Liberia should have repatriated their national who became sick in Nigeria? Because medical facilities are not the primary driving factor.

See above.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 01:45PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I cant do this anymore, can you respond to Prof Plum on this line of thought, I am quitting. Best of luck.

You should have quit a long time ago. You've shown yourself up to be full of hot air presented as fact. Run along now

Kristopherus · 13-10-2014 01:46PM

Micael Essien is denying that he has contracted that accursed disease:eek:.

My name is URL · 13-10-2014 01:49PM

Kristopherus wrote: »

Micael Essien is denying that he has contracted that accursed disease:eek:.

He was forced to deny it because of idiotic pervasive rumors being spread by idiotic people.

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 01:54PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Because Ebola is quite serious apparently.

Hasnt arisen yet but i would imagine they could come to an arrangement, being allies and all.

"...not the primary driving factor" implies that there are other factors. One of those would be the standard of medical care in Liberia which seems non-existent. So, no. How is Britain or Spain repatriating a doctor and Liberia repatriating a citizen the same thing?

See above.

I'm not sure I can remember the British government repatriating any sick person from abroad, barring british military. It's usually arranged privately.

But it is interesting that you think the 'primary driving force' for repatriating foreign healthcare workers is political and, according to your earlier assertion that

"I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure."

it is clear that you think there is no medical reason at all to influence repatriation to better facilities (a position you have somewhat softened on since).

Anyway I think another poster provided a link to show that medical intervention improved outcomes, which is the bit you were skeptical of in the first place.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 01:58PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm not sure I can remember the British government repatriating any sick person from abroad, barring british military. It's usually arranged privately.

But it is interesting that you think the 'primary driving force' for repatriating foreign healthcare workers is political and, according to your earlier assertion that

"I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure."

it is clear that you think there is no medical reason at all to influence repatriation to better facilities (a position you have somewhat softened on since).

Anyway I think another poster provided a link to show that medical intervention improved outcomes, which is the bit you were skeptical of in the first place.

It is not "clear" that i think there is no medical reason at all influencing the decision. I never said that and you know it. You're grasping

jillymayr · 13-10-2014 01:59PM

surely they've figured out a way to contain this by now

whats newxt · 13-10-2014 02:01PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLKpB1EHA

marco_polo · 13-10-2014 02:08PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

It is not "clear" that i think there is no medical reason at all influencing the decision. I never said that and you know it. You're grasping

He is referring to your original argument re medical treatment the one before you moved the goalposts to the reasons for repatriation.

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 02:13PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Great. You got some links to that? I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure. .....Link?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?

I think you've had plenty of answers to your original question, and you have realised your error.
My argument regarding repatriation was part of my back up of the original point.

Peist2007 wrote: »

It is not "clear" that i think there is no medical reason at all influencing the decision. I never said that and you know it. You're grasping

It is clear as per the above links that you didn't realise that better medical care would improve outcome (see your posts above)

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 02:22PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you've had plenty of answers to your original question, and you have realised your error.
My argument regarding repatriation was part of my back up of the original point.

It is clear as per the above links that you didn't realise that better medical care would improve outcome (see your posts above)

My question about the mortality rate dropping as the disease crosses the irish border was in response to Spring Onion's comment that the mortality rate in ireland will be less than 50%. I asked for a link to this and there were none. That is nothing to do with medical care or whether it is good, bad or indifferent.

You then commented on Spring Onion's comment and said this:

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

FFS lads, he said the mortality rate in the west would be less than 50% and gave the reasons why. And then was asked to back it up with a link? To what - the other numerous outbreaks of Ebola in the west?? Then when he surmises the known outbreaks in the west with their outcomes (admittedly statistically insignificant, but the only information available on outcomes in the west) he is ridiculed? What do you people want? The stats are just not there. Go google intensive care outcomes for other viral diseases versus no care at all and see what pops up in your browser.

Edit: And to add to that, why do you think Western countries are so eager to repatriate their sick citizens if the outcome at home is no better????

I have emboldened the relevant part on which i said that repatriation is not taking place because of the better treatment in a particular country eg UK. It will take place because one its citizens has caught a serious disease, one that is near the top of the disease food chain, and it owes a duty of care to it's citizens to protect them.

So, no, you have definitely misunderstood me. Do you really think i am suggesting that the differences between Liberian healthcare and UK healthcare are not a factor?

Edit: You keep saying "It is clear...." when the only thing clear is that you dont find any of what i am saying clear

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 02:24PM

marco_polo wrote: »

He is referring to your original argument re medical treatment the one before you moved the goalposts to the reasons for repatriation.

I argued against his thinking on the repatriation issue. The goalposts you are referring to are an entirely different poster. But thanks for the input.

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 02:30PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

I argued against his thinking on the repatriation issue. The goalposts you are referring to are an entirely different poster. But thanks for the input.

As i said already, the repatriation was in back up to the point,(as you can see from my post you bolded above) which you have already conceded, that better medical care will improve outcomes. Which you questioned when you queried "Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?"

Keep up.

MadYaker · 13-10-2014 02:34PM

Lads I think I've got ebola.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 02:34PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

As i said already, the repatriation was in back up to the point,(as you can see from my post you bolded above) which you have already conceded, that better medical care will improve outcomes.
Keep up.

Keep up with myself? I took issue with the repatriation point and we have discussed it. I have been here from when our discussion began about an hour ago. It was quite clear that i was referring to the repatriation issue given that my post was a one liner and clearly stated that i disagreed with you on your repatriation point. You even responded by asking me to elaborate. So i am afraid you are the one lagging behind at the moment.

Edit: here ya go:

Peist2007 wrote: »

That wouldnt be my take on why people are being repatriated at all.

There ya go. Clearly my point was on repatriation.

Kunkka · 13-10-2014 02:38PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Lads I think I've got ebola.

Stay away from here a few people think you should be shot!

:eek::eek:

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 02:44PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Keep up with myself? I took issue with the repatriation point and we have discussed it. I have been here from when our discussion began about an hour ago. It was quite clear that i was referring to the repatriation issue given that my post was a one liner and clearly stated that i disagreed with you on your repatriation point. You even responded by asking me to elaborate. So i am afraid you are the one lagging behind at the moment.

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

You also seem to now agree that outcomes will be better in countries with better facilities - which answers the questions you posed regarding why
"Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?" and " I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure"

So I'm glad we've at least clarified that for you.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 02:47PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

You also seem to agree that outcomes will be better in countries with better facilities - which answers the questions you posed regarding why
"Why would the mortality rate of the disease decrease as it crosses the Irish border?" and " I was under the assumption that the mortality rate would remain fairly constant with this disease, there being only management of it and no tested cure"

So I'm glad we've at least clarified that for you.

Whoever helped you clarify things for me make sure you thank them. Because you werent much help :pac:

JapaneseLove · 13-10-2014 02:49PM

All i know is that Ebola can fu*k off until Assassins Creed Unity comes out and i complete it. Then i will gladly sh*t my liver and kidneys out in a putrid mess all over some hospital bed.

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 02:51PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Whoever helped you clarify things for me make sure you thank them. Because you werent much help :pac:

Well in any case, I'm glad you understand now. Because for most people it would be blindingly obvious.

(I guess that's what happens when worms have their heads firmly stuck in the sand)

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 02:53PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well in any case, I'm glad you understand now. Because for most people it would be blindingly obvious.

(I guess that's what happens when worms have their heads firmly stuck in the sand)

Lord :rolleyes:

Some serious clowns on this thread!

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 03:03PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Lord :rolleyes:

Some serious clowns on this thread!

That's funny. I think my posts on this thread have been a little more informed than yours. But you're free to think whatever you like.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 03:06PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That's funny. I think my posts on this thread have been a little more informed than yours. But you're free to think whatever you like.

Do you have a system for measuring levels of informedness or is it solely based on your own personal biases?

ProfessorPlum · 13-10-2014 03:12PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Do you have a system for measuring levels of informedness or is it solely based on your own personal biases?

No, it's something else that should be blindingly obvious.

WakeUp · 13-10-2014 03:14PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ok, you disagree with my assertion that patients are being repatriated primarily to improve their chances of survival (i.e. the medical reason, not the political one which you believe is the 'primary driving force'). Fair enough if thats what you believe.

In my opinion nobody should be repatriated if they become infected. its stupid and dangerous and violates all laws of containment. improving their chances of survival doesnt come into it or shouldnt come into it. and if the people themselves request to be brought back I think they are being selfish. when their governments move them back to their countries they are placing the medical teams and anyone else who has to deal with them and wider population in direct danger and risk by doing this. that is morally and ethically wrong. why should they be put at risk? should other people be put in danger to improve their chances. why should other people potentially have to become infected and possibly die to treat them. this is a bio level 4 agent this is different. is that fair. I dont think it is. especially when they dont have the training or the experience in dealing with such things. the response and dealing with this so far has been a shambles. violating laws of containment is playing with fire and this has proven true as we have seen in Spain. if I was the family of that nurse that became infected I would be preparing a lawsuit against the Spanish government for reckless negligence. theres a lesson in this for the Irish government should they have any bright ideas about bringing people back here who may become infected. weve read a lot about the transmission vectors of this virus I think a few more should be added that dont seem to get much mention - human error/dangerous recklessness/outright phuckwittery. stop violating the laws of containment its asking for trouble. moral reasons dont come into it.

Peist2007 · 13-10-2014 03:20PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

No, it's something else that should be blindingly obvious.

Ah, so personal bias then. I have a strong suspicion you still dont understand the point i was trying to make. Say hi to Spring Onion for me

Ebola virus outbreak

Comments