Ebola virus outbreak

asteroids over berlin · 14-10-2014 10:07AM

gozunda wrote: »

+ Irish Independent - small ed pp25

'Ebola most serious health crisis in modern times' the World Health Organisation had warned

Lol - The WHO are sh/ting bricks and the Irish Health authorities are saying 'arhh sure - it's grand' ... :rolleyes:

Just to put up the official statement of that line by WHO, as you left out an important word 'acute'

The World Health Organization described it as the "the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times"

gozunda · 14-10-2014 10:09AM

asteroids over berlin wrote: »

Just to put up the official statement of that line by WHO, as you left out an important word 'acute'

The World Health Organization described it as the "the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times"

Link?

'acute' left out by the Indo ...

ProfessorPlum · 14-10-2014 10:10AM

Well 'acute' just means thats it's happening right now - there's nothing to say that it could't become "the most severe, chronic health emergency seen in modern times". Not that I'm saying it will...

SpaceTime · 14-10-2014 10:11AM

I'm not really sure why they're just assuming that it'll magically go away. We need to be working a lot more rapidly towards a vaccine.

Creative Juices · 14-10-2014 10:11AM

smash wrote: »

Go ask sky news, they reported it. But I also heard it on the radio this morning too.

I tend to avoid Sky News but the link you shared also shows "..." which makes the statement pointless. How did they represent "..." on the radio verbally i.e. what are the missing words?

FullblownRose · 14-10-2014 10:15AM

Creative Juices wrote: »

I tend to avoid Sky News but the link you shared also shows "..." which makes the statement pointless. How did they represent "..." on the radio verbally i.e. what are the missing words?

Could be anything..for example ''without exception'', or ''after 'x' disease or other health threat''..or it could have been filler words with little significance.

Creative Juices · 14-10-2014 10:15AM

FullblownRose wrote: »

Could be anything..for example ''without exception'', or ''after 'x' disease or other health threat''..or it could have been filler words with little significance.

I know that, without the full statement, I would not have printed it or stuck it on a forum. It's meaningless.

smash · 14-10-2014 10:16AM

Creative Juices wrote: »

I tend to avoid Sky News but the link you shared also shows "..." which makes the statement pointless. How did they represent "..." on the radio verbally i.e. what are the missing words?

As has been said above, the missing word was "acute". Still, they're treating it as a threat. UK are opening advanced screening at their airports today and are expecting at least 10 confirmed cases over the next few weeks.

I don't see what's so hard to believe about ebola being a threat.

Creative Juices · 14-10-2014 10:18AM

smash wrote: »

As has been said above, the missing word was "acute". Still, they're treating it as a threat. UK are opening advanced screening at their airports today and are expecting at least 10 confirmed cases over the next few weeks.

I don't see what's so hard to believe about ebola being a threat.

So the full statement is ""most severe acute health emergency in modern times". Thanks.
Strange that Sky would remove one word for 3 dots.

Who doesn't believe ebola isn't a threat?

hiFidelity · 14-10-2014 10:24AM

Some years ago I used to watch the FEMA detention camps conspiracy videos on Youtube.

People were speculating as to why these camps were being built across the US; Martial Law and all that. Now I am beginning to wonder.

I know, I know; CT forum ->>

Canis Lupus · 14-10-2014 10:36AM

Creative Juices wrote: »

Who doesn't believe ebola isn't a threat?

Depends on where you live. If I was a West African I'd be very scared. If I lived in Ireland I wouldn't care so much and here in Australia I'm equally blase about it. As long as it's on the 'radar' and our respective government take the relevant steps then I don't think there's much to worry about as a population.

You simply can't compare the modern world both in terms of resources and general education of the public to a lot of the African people. Hell the previous president of South Africa was virtually an AIDS denier and the current one has said in the past that AIDS can be prevented by showering after sex. These are people that put more faith in juju men than real doctors and if you can have leaders of state thinking such things then you can only imagine the education level of the remainder.

I'm not saying that this isn't a crisis, it is, for Africa and arguably for populous poor states like India etc but I don't think there's any particular cause for panic for us in 1st world countries. Any possible outbreak as unlikely as it is would be contained very quickly.

Peist2007 · 14-10-2014 10:37AM

The WHO really need to come onto Boards and be put right by some of the posters here, hype clowns the lot of them

ThinkAboutIt · 14-10-2014 10:38AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Depends on where you live. If I was a West African I'd be very scared. If I lived in Ireland I wouldn't care so much and here in Australia I'm equally blase about it. As long as it's on the 'radar' and our respective government take the relevant steps then I don't think there's much to worry about as a population.

You simply can't compare the modern world both in terms of resources and general education of the public to a lot of the African people. Hell the previous president of South Africa was virtually an AIDS denier and the current one has said in the past that AIDS can be prevented by showering after sex. These are people that put more faith in juju men than real doctors and if you can have leaders of state thinking such things then you can only imagine the education level of the remainder.

I'm not saying that this isn't a crisis, it is, for Africa and arguably for populous poor states like India etc but I don't think there's any particular cause for panic for us in 1st world countries. Any possible outbreak as unlikely as it is would be contained very quickly.

Stop it with your common sense please.

ProfessorPlum · 14-10-2014 10:49AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Depends on where you live. If I was a West African I'd be very scared. If I lived in Ireland I wouldn't care so much and here in Australia I'm equally blase about it. As long as it's on the 'radar' and our respective government take the relevant steps then I don't think there's much to worry about as a population.

You simply can't compare the modern world both in terms of resources and general education of the public to a lot of the African people. Hell the previous president of South Africa was virtually an AIDS denier and the current one has said in the past that AIDS can be prevented by showering after sex. These are people that put more faith in juju men than real doctors and if you can have leaders of state thinking such things then you can only imagine the education level of the remainder.

I'm not saying that this isn't a crisis, it is, for Africa and arguably for populous poor states like India etc but I don't think there's any particular cause for panic for us in 1st world countries. Any possible outbreak as unlikely as it is would be contained very quickly.

A lot of sense there, but so long as Ebola is a crisis in Africa, it poses a very real threat to the rest of the world, particularly poorer countries with poor infrastructure. So richer countries in the west can't afford to be complacent. The crisis in Africa needs to be brought under control, or at the very least we can expect sporadic cases/outbreaks in the west. How long can we keep up the heightened vigilance we see at the moment (holding planes full of people at airports, locking down hotels and department buildings etc)

TheBeardedLady · 14-10-2014 10:49AM

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/how-avoid-catching-ebola?CMP=fb_gu

The Spanish media has published nothing like this, so it's reassuring the read.

Creative Juices · 14-10-2014 10:52AM

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.

Excellent article, thanks. Reassuring alright.

FullblownRose · 14-10-2014 11:10AM

From the Guardian atricle (which is very good) ''Public toilets, in general, are very unlikely to be a risk.''. I kind of disagree- the ONY time I'd use one of them is if I was feeling very unwell!

TheBeardedLady · 14-10-2014 11:20AM

FullblownRose wrote: »

From the Guardian atricle (which is very good) ''Public toilets, in general, are very unlikely to be a risk.''. I kind of disagree- the ONY time I'd use one of them is if I was feeling very unwell!

I wouldn't be rushing to use them in Sierra Leone but I wouldn't avoid them here just yet. I'd give them a quick wipe with my hand sanitiser before using them (I've become a bit of an OCD freak with that stuff now).

Edit: Although yes, I'd probably only use them if I really had to.

nyarlothothep · 14-10-2014 11:46AM

hiFidelity wrote: »

Some years ago I used to watch the FEMA detention camps conspiracy videos on Youtube.

People were speculating as to why these camps were being built across the US; Martial Law and all that. Now I am beginning to wonder.

I know, I know; CT forum ->>

Not to mention the Georgia Guidestones and the Denver Airport Murals. Both funded by anonymous organisations.

nyarlothothep · 14-10-2014 11:59AM

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Very clear and concise article today in The Guardian on how to avoid catching it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/how-avoid-catching-ebola?CMP=fb_gu

The Spanish media has published nothing like this, so it's reassuring the read.

If anything I suspect it's intended to prevent mass panic when ebola arrives in the UK. Where did the 10 cases figure come from? I would be very nervous with 10 ebola cases in the UK.

nyarlothothep · 14-10-2014 03:10PM

Consider the costs of sending people in with Hazmat suits, setting up isolation units and so on in Western countries over say a 5 year period. Let's assume Ebola becomes endemic in Africa, then we have sporadic outbreaks in Europe, the US and probably a mass outbreak in China/India. Leading to a global pandemic, which destroys economies and so forth. This leads to the question: why is there not a mass international effort, regardless of cost it will be less expensive to deal with this now than to let it escalate which it will. So why is this??? Why the political theatre at airports and not the allocation of money and resources to deal with the actual problem, these countries that are hotbeds of infection? Why is this? Is it really a matter of a lack of foresight? Or is it a depopulation program?

littlemac1980 · 14-10-2014 03:32PM

The WHO are saying there will be up-to 10000 new cases a week in 2 months time if the current situation isn't somehow improved upon - though its not clear how precisely the current situation can be improved. Those wouldn't appear to be exaggerated projections based on the growth in cases experienced so far, and that appears to be based on outbreaks not occurring in another African or even Western Country or urban area.

That's compared to the 1000 cases per week experienced over the last 4 weeks. h.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/10000-new-ebola-cases-per-week-could-be-seen-who-says

That's a tremendous number of potential cases to deal wit

Could a concerted effort possibly reverse that type of growth, and isolate and treat 40,000 people spread across three entire West African countries?

zetalambda · 14-10-2014 03:34PM

Pretty soon, we could be knocking on the entrance to one of those underground bunkers and apologizing for all the ridicule and laughter.

nyarlothothep · 14-10-2014 03:42PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The WHO are saying there will be up-to 10000 new cases a week in 2 months time if the current situation isn't somehow improved upon - though its not clear how precisely the current situation can be improved. Those wouldn't appear to be exaggerated projections based on the growth in cases experienced so far, and that appears to be based on outbreaks not occurring in another African or even Western Country or urban area.

That's compared to the 1000 cases per week experienced over the last 4 weeks. h.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/10000-new-ebola-cases-per-week-could-be-seen-who-says

That's a tremendous number of potential cases to deal wit

Could a concerted effort possibly reverse that type of growth, and isolate and treat 40,000 people spread across three entire West African countries?

There's no way short of a miracle. Hopefully it might burn itself out within a year in these countries.

ceadaoin. · 14-10-2014 03:45PM

GENEVA (AP) — The death rate in the Ebola outbreak has risen to 70 percent and there could be up to 10,000 new cases a week in two months, the World Health Organization warned Tuesday.

WHO assistant director-general Dr. Bruce Aylward gave the grim figures during a news conference in Geneva. Previously, WHO had estimated the death rate at around 50 percent.

Aylward said the 70 percent death rate was "a high mortality disease" in any circumstance and that the U.N. health agency was still focused on trying to get sick people isolated and provide treatment as early as possible.

http://news.yahoo.com/10-000-ebola-cases-per-week-could-seen-124410379.html

Also, the aid worker who was brought back to Germany for treatment has died.

In Berlin, a U.N. medical worker infected with Ebola in Liberia died despite "intensive medical procedures." The St. Georg hospital in Leipzig said Tuesday that the 56-year-old man, whose name has not been released, died overnight of the infection.

The man tested positive for Ebola on Oct. 6, prompting Liberia's U.N. peacekeeping mission to place 41 other staff members under "close medical observation."

littlemac1980 · 14-10-2014 03:47PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Consider the costs of sending people in with Hazmat suits, setting up isolation units and so on in Western countries over say a 5 year period. Let's assume Ebola becomes endemic in Africa, then we have sporadic outbreaks in Europe, the US and probably a mass outbreak in China/India. Leading to a global pandemic, which destroys economies and so forth. This leads to the question: why is there not a mass international effort, regardless of cost it will be less expensive to deal with this now than to let it escalate which it will. So why is this??? Why the political theatre at airports and not the allocation of money and resources to deal with the actual problem, these countries that are hotbeds of infection? Why is this? Is it really a matter of a lack of foresight? Or is it a depopulation program?

You've omitted a possible reason why there hasn't been a concerted effort.

Perhaps, it's possible that those who could and would respond to reverse the situation know its already too late.

Here's the Wikipedia link of the list of all known Ebola Outbreaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks

This outbreak is already a magnitude of almost 20 times anything previously experienced.

It's really odd and unnerving to periodically review the entry for the current outbreak. Both in terms of the numbers affected/who have died/and the list of Countries affected which has continued to increase.

Since the last update to Wikipedia the WHO have released updated figures of:

Cases - 8,914

Deaths - 4,447

littlemac1980 · 14-10-2014 03:49PM

zetalambda wrote: »

Pretty soon, we could be knocking on the entrance to one of those underground bunkers and apologizing for all the ridicule and laughter.

I won't be letting you in because you laughed at me ;-)

nyarlothothep · 14-10-2014 03:51PM

70.8% :eek:

Yeah there is probably only one solution and that's a vaccine, otherwise we're all screwed.

littlemac1980 · 14-10-2014 03:56PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

70.8% :eek:

Yeah there is probably only one solution and that's a vaccine, otherwise we're all screwed.

Technically we're not all screwed. As far as I'm aware - once you've got it once you can't get it again. There will be about half of us left in 3-5 years time. :eek:

TheBeardedLady · 14-10-2014 04:02PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If anything I suspect it's intended to prevent mass panic when ebola arrives in the UK. Where did the 10 cases figure come from? I would be very nervous with 10 ebola cases in the UK.

Shhhh.

Ebola virus outbreak

Comments