Ebola virus outbreak

RobertKK · 15-10-2014 11:20AM

On CNN, they said two vaccines worked on non human primates about 10 years ago but the trials did not move any further into human trials, but they are now. One of the vaccines tested back then was developed by the US military.

littlemac1980 · 15-10-2014 11:21AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Only one or two people a week who aren't alarmist doomsayers? God help us.

zzzzzzzz.......

Maximus Alexander · 15-10-2014 11:21AM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

zzzzzzzz.......

How can you sleep and panic at the same time?

wexie · 15-10-2014 11:25AM

Beano wrote: »

so you have already assumed that there is a major outbreak then? The point i am making is that we would never get to that stage.

Let's hope so, but the point I am trying to make is that it's not unthinkable.
I would suspect that our health services will be hopelessly underequipped to deal with even a few cases.

We're now hearing reports of infections happening inside hospitals, you think that couldn't happen here? (and likely hospitals with far better equipment and training than most of ours)

The CDC have promised to have ebola teams on standby to fly to reported cases in the US. Where would our ebola teams come from?

How many healthcare workers in Ireland are there that have experience in dealing with something like this?

Beano · 15-10-2014 11:39AM

Let's hope so, but the point I am trying to make is that it's not unthinkable.
I would suspect that our health services will be hopelessly underequipped to deal with even a few cases.

We're now hearing reports of infections happening inside hospitals, you think that couldn't happen here? (and likely hospitals with far better equipment and training than most of ours)
[/QUOTE]

why would you assume that other countries hospitals would have better equipment and training than our own?

A nurse was infected. Why were none of her colleagues infected? Does that not point to her not following protocols correctly?

wexie wrote: »

The CDC have promised to have ebola teams on standby to fly to reported cases in the US. Where would our ebola teams come from?

How many healthcare workers in Ireland are there that have experience in dealing with something like this?

I have no idea how many. Do you?

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 11:45AM

Beano wrote: »

why would you assume that other countries hospitals would have better equipment and training than our own?

A nurse was infected. Why were none of her colleagues infected?(they were) Does that not point to her not following protocols correctly?

Well it's two nurses in Texas, and one in Spain. That would point to there being some weakness in the protocols being used.
A good protocol should not have such a high number of failures.

wexie · 15-10-2014 11:47AM

Beano wrote: »

why would you assume that other countries hospitals would have better equipment and training than our own?

well....err....mostly because I've been in hospitals in other countries and I've been in hospitals here. I was chatting to a foreign (german) doctor one day who told me that some of the equipment he's seen in hospitals here they had gotten rid of at home already (sent to Africa interestingly enough.....)

Beano wrote: »

A nurse was infected. Why were none of her colleagues infected? Does that not point to her not following protocols correctly?

It does indeed point to her not following protocols correctly and that's how you go from a single sick (contained) patient to an outbreak.... :rolleyes:

Beano · 15-10-2014 11:51AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well it's two nurses in Texas, and one in Spain. That would point to there being some weakness in the protocols being used.
A good protocol should not have such a high number of failures.

why just these and not the rest of their colleagues? A protocol is only as good as those that try to follow it.

Akrasia · 15-10-2014 11:53AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Rubbish. Ebola has about the same reproductive rate as HIV and a similar mode of transmission. The western world has been rife with HIV carriers for a couple of decades now, and instead of dying or becoming non-contagious in a matter of weeks, they stick around for years or even decades.

Have you managed to avoid HIV so far?

And this is why a single ebola patient in the U.S. has managed to infect two healthworkers despite them using the best available biohazard equipment?

Aids is a global catastrophy, If ebola was 'just' as dangerous as Aids, it would still be a massive crisis, but the method of transmission is not the same as Ebola.

Aids victims can have physical contact with other people without infecting them because they are not actively shedding the virus.

Ebola is a hemorrhagic illness, the internal organs liquify and late stage ebola patients suffer acute diahorrea, vomiting, bleeding from all orifices and open sores in their skin.

Physical contact with anyone experiencing symptoms of ebola poses a risk of infection, but the greatest risk is at late stages where the viral loads are enormous and any physical contact at all with the patient can pass on the virus and even after the patient dies as the body is still highly infectious after death. Aids is bad, don't get me wrong, but ebola poses a different kind of a threat because it is more contagous but for a shorter period of time.

MadYaker · 15-10-2014 12:00PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dude, ebola does not have a similar mode of transmission, unless you want to categorise it under the label fluid transmission which misses the finer details that are important! For example HIV is transmitted through sex or needles ie drug use in most cases. Ebola...well all you have to do is touch the surface of an object that may have the virus, (perhaps someone got sick etc didn't wash their hands properly) and you're already infected. In the case of HIV the transmission is almost specialised and there are treatments for it, whereas with Ebola we don't even know for sure whether Zmapp works, and there's not enough of it anyway.

Almost completely false. HIV and Ebola both survive in bodily fluids. Ebola spreads a bit easier than HIV but not much. It is destroyed by exposure to UV light (sunlight) so it doesn't really last outside the body for very long.

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 12:03PM

Beano wrote: »

why just these and not the rest of their colleagues? A protocol is only as good as those that try to follow it.

A good protocol should be clear and and simple to follow as possible. If there are multiple failures in the protocol, you need to go back and look at the protocol itself, training and equipment provided etc. It's the lazy approach (and the wrong and least helpful one) to immediately blame the users for failure.

Maximus Alexander · 15-10-2014 12:16PM

Akrasia wrote: »

And this is why a single ebola patient in the U.S. has managed to infect two healthworkers despite them using the best available biohazard equipment?

Aids is a global catastrophy, If ebola was 'just' as dangerous as Aids, it would still be a massive crisis, but the method of transmission is not the same as Ebola.

Aids victims can have physical contact with other people without infecting them because they are not actively shedding the virus.

Ebola is a hemorrhagic illness, the internal organs liquify and late stage ebola patients suffer acute diahorrea, vomiting, bleeding from all orifices and open sores in their skin.

Physical contact with anyone experiencing symptoms of ebola poses a risk of infection, but the greatest risk is at late stages where the viral loads are enormous and any physical contact at all with the patient can pass on the virus and even after the patient dies as the body is still highly infectious after death. Aids is bad, don't get me wrong, but ebola poses a different kind of a threat because it is more contagous but for a shorter period of time.

Obviously if you express it like that, it sounds utterly terrifying. And therein lies the problem.

Despite all of that, the reproductive rate of ebola is lower than that of HIV. ie. On average someone carrying ebola infects fewer people than someone carrying HIV. Or SARS. Or Mumps. Or Smallpox.

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 12:20PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Obviously if you express it like that, it sounds utterly terrifying. And therein lies the problem.

Despite all of that, the reproductive rate of ebola is lower than that of HIV. ie. On average someone carrying ebola infects fewer people than someone carrying HIV. Or SARS. Or Mumps. Or Smallpox.

Yes. And despite this there is an out of control epidemic in West Africa with number of infected increasing exponentially, causing the WHO, the UN, the CDC etc to become increasingly worried about the threat both to Africa and the rest of the world.

Just sayin' like.

Maximus Alexander · 15-10-2014 12:31PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes. And despite this there is an out of control epidemic in West Africa with number of infected increasing exponentially, causing the WHO, the UN, the CDC etc to become increasingly worried about the threat both to Africa and the rest of the world.

Just sayin' like.

Of course they're worried - they're right to be. Their job is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

That doesn't justify people half the world away entering panic mode over something that is highly unlikely to ever impact them.

wexie · 15-10-2014 12:33PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Almost completely false. HIV and Ebola both survive in bodily fluids. Ebola spreads a bit easier than HIV but not much. It is destroyed by exposure to UV light (sunlight) so it doesn't really last outside the body for very long.

From the CDC website :

Ebola is killed with hospital-grade disinfectants (such as household bleach). Ebola on dried on surfaces such as doorknobs and countertops can survive for several hours; however, virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

A few hours.....kinda depends on your point of view if that's very long or not.
Seems to me in a few hours many people could have touched the same door handle in Dublin airport, or what about those little gate thingies at customs....

Canis Lupus · 15-10-2014 12:37PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dude, ebola does not have a similar mode of transmission, unless you want to categorise it under the label fluid transmission which misses the finer details that are important! For example HIV is transmitted through sex or needles ie drug use in most cases. Ebola...well all you have to do is touch the surface of an object that may have the virus, (perhaps someone got sick etc didn't wash their hands properly) and you're already infected. In the case of HIV the transmission is almost specialised and there are treatments for it, whereas with Ebola we don't even know for sure whether Zmapp works, and there's not enough of it anyway.

Whu... what? You need an open wound or to touch your mouth/eyes. Ebola doesn't just soak into you. I know you like to hang out in the CT forum but seriously....

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 12:43PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Of course they're worried - they're right to be. Their job is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

That doesn't justify people half the world away entering panic mode over something that is highly unlikely to ever impact them.

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Maximus Alexander · 15-10-2014 01:22PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Why would you assume that my original post was directed towards people who are well informed rather than the crazies that you have acknowledged the existence of? ie. The people that it was very clearly directed towards.

Akrasia · 15-10-2014 01:29PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

tbh, I really don't see much 'entering panic mode' here - one or two maybe, but otherwise it's mostly a useful and often well informed discussion on the situation.

On the other hand posters who suggest cracking our skulls open to feast on goo are probably just a bit early for Halloween.

Rule one of the internet
Nobody shall rebuke any quote from the Simpsons

pueblo · 15-10-2014 01:32PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well it's two nurses in Texas, and one in Spain. That would point to there being some weakness in the protocols being used.
A good protocol should not have such a high number of failures.

The nurse in Spain broke protocol by touching her face with a gloved hand...

nothing wrong with the protocol...just the execution

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 01:32PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would you assume that my original post was directed towards people who are well informed rather than the crazies that you have acknowledged the existence of? ie. The people that it was very clearly directed towards.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Annual HIV deaths: ~1,600,000
Annual Malaria deaths: ~627,000
Annual Influenza deaths: 250,000 - 500,000

Ebola deaths to date: < 5500

It's time to crack open our skulls and feast on the goo inside!

Possibly as your original post was omnidirectional. Usually if a poster wishes to address another, they will either PM them or quote the post to which they were replying. Otherwise we have to assume the post is for everyones enjoyment.:pac:

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 01:33PM

pueblo wrote: »

The nurse in Spain broke protocol by touching her face with a gloved hand...

I'm not sure if the nurse in question agrees that that is the case.

pueblo wrote: »

nothing wrong with the protocol...just the execution

Problem with that is, the execution is a rather large part of the protocol.

Peist2007 · 15-10-2014 01:45PM

Beano wrote: »

so you have already assumed that there is a major outbreak then? The point i am making is that we would never get to that stage.

Expand on your point. If it couldnt get to that stage, how would ireland cope with one case? Where would we carry out that care? Now, how about 5 cases? 10 cases? 100 cases?

I am pie · 15-10-2014 01:51PM

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

wexie · 15-10-2014 02:04PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Expand on your point. If it couldnt get to that stage, how would ireland cope with one case? Where would we carry out that care? Now, how about 5 cases? 10 cases? 100 cases?

From what I gather there are currently two (2!!) hospital beds equipped to deal with Ebola (Mater and James' I think)(unless they've recently increased the capacity.

So as long as there aren't more than 2 cases I guess we'll be grand.

Wouldn't like to see any cases treated in the likes of any of the regional hospitals though.

realweirdo · 15-10-2014 02:07PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Annual HIV deaths: ~1,600,000
Annual Malaria deaths: ~627,000
Annual Influenza deaths: 250,000 - 500,000

Ebola deaths to date: < 5500

It's time to crack open our skulls and feast on the goo inside!

And what will the comparable stats be in 1 year, 5 or 10 years given the current rate of spread?

Ebola makes HIV look benign in comparison.

ProfessorPlum · 15-10-2014 02:11PM

wexie wrote: »

From what I gather there are currently two (2!!) hospital beds equipped to deal with Ebola (Mater and James' I think)(unless they've recently increased the capacity.

So as long as there aren't more than 2 cases I guess we'll be grand.

Wouldn't like to see any cases treated in the likes of any of the regional hospitals though.

I think we're doing a little bit better than that!
The Mater has a 12 bed isolation unit: 2 'high spec' negative pressure rooms, 4 standard negative pressure rooms, and a shared 6 bed unit.

Don't know what the situation is in the rest of the nations hospitals.

Akrasia · 15-10-2014 02:13PM

I am pie wrote: »

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

The chances of infection from sharing a public space with infected people (before symptoms appear or in the early stages of symptoms) are very remote. The infection risk is primarily through close contact with symptomatic patients while they are being treated or by contact with clothing or bedding that has been soiled by an infected person. This means that it is not that hard to contain ebola once you have the resources to do so.

The problem is when the number of patients exceeds the ability to treat them in the required isolation environment (as is the case in west africa where resources have always been overstretched) In the developed world, we can contain a certain level of the illness, but we still have a finite capacity to treat people and contain the illness.

I'm hoping that there will be a vaccine developed quickly which can be given to front line emergency services workers which will do a huge amount to reduce the spread of the virus.

wexie · 15-10-2014 02:15PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think we're doing a little bit better than that!
The Mater has a 12 bed isolation unit: 2 'high spec' negative pressure rooms, 4 standard negative pressure rooms, and a shared 6 bed unit.

Don't know what the situation is in the rest of the nations hospitals.

In that case I was given false information, I will go back to my source and suitably chastise them.

...let's hope we won't need them

Canis Lupus · 15-10-2014 02:15PM

I am pie wrote: »

Sweaty infected patient touches door knob, i touch it, i rub my eyes, bite my nails or pick my nose and I can be infected. That's how I understand it.

I am not in the throws of panic here, but it does anecdotally sound like the mode of transmission is based around the sort of things that people do on a daily basis.

I guess the key to successfully fighting ebola is controlling the environment of infected patients.

No as the virus doesn't seem to transmit via sweat. Now if the patient vomited, bled or smeared their poo on the door handle that would be a different matter.

Ebola virus outbreak

Comments