Ebola virus outbreak

ProfessorPlum · 16-10-2014 04:18PM

n an exchange on Fox News, for instance, Megyn Kelly talked to a former official from the Department of Justice about closing borders:

“These are people like the person in Dallas, who vomited everywhere, who Lord knows what he did on the airplane and in the Dulles airport.”

“He was asymptomatic on the airplane, they said.”

“Yeah, well you don’t have to be symptomatic to spread this disease.”

“They say you do.”

“Well, we’ll see.”

Fox's usual bipartisan reporting style

EDit · 16-10-2014 04:22PM

got the gender wrong as well haven't they...it was a woman on the plane, right?

Ignore me...they are talking about the first guy.

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 04:23PM

Yeah I believe stock markets are suffering a correction anyway following 4-5 years of growth. However an exaggerated panic from ebola could send markets into a dive if Americans started doing sill things like not traveling etc.

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 04:24PM

EDit wrote: »

got the gender wrong as well haven't they...it was a woman on the plane, right?

I think that references the 1st imported ebola victim, not the healthcare worker.

ProfessorPlum · 16-10-2014 04:24PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

It's unfortunate that even in this well meant, supposedly well thought out report - simple critical errors are being made.

He says that they need 70% in care facilities (i.e. isolated) by 01.12.2014.

He says that by 01.12.2014 current projections are that there will be 10,000 new cases per week (as previously reported/discussed here).

He says that under current projections they expect to have 4300 beds in ebola facilities by 01.12.2014.

He says therefore they need 2700 more beds by 01.12.2014 to reach the required 70% target.

What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that by 01.12.2014 there will be far in excess of 10,000 existing cases.

What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 01.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 08.12.2014 there will be a projected 10,000 new cases that week.

What he (somehow) fails to recognise is that on 15.12.2014 and 23.12.2014 there will be a projected 20,000 new cases that fortnight.

What he should realise (because its primary school maths) is that 7000 beds will never be 70% of the cumulative figures at 31.12.2014, and people who need care don't magically disappear once they are placed in a bed.

70% of the total figure at that stage will be somewhere in the region of 25000-30000 beds, some will have died in the meantime (6-16 days) some will recover, but its certainly not close to 7000.

These are the people in charge. This is why there is reason to worry.

Its basic maths - not rocket science. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

I can see your confusion, but look at it this way.

There is no way on earth that every ebola patient will have a bed by Dec 1st. There is some chance that 70% will. If they can contain 70%, they are along way towards restricting spread. If they can restrict spread, the problem will become more manageable.
The goal at this stage is to slow down/stop the exponential spread of the disease.

There's only one thing worse than having no goals, and that is having goals that are in no way even remotely achievable. The man is being realistic. At least give him that.

littlemac1980 · 16-10-2014 04:31PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I can see your confusion, but look at it this way.

There is no way on earth that every ebola patient will have a bed by Dec 1st. There is some chance that 70% will. If they can contain 70%, they are along way towards restricting spread. If they can restrict spread, the problem will become more manageable.
The goal at this stage is to slow down/stop the exponential spread of the disease.

There's only one thing worse than having no goals, and that is having goals that are in no way even remotely achievable. The man is being realistic. At least give him that.

No, No, No, No...

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

There's no confusion involved here on my part whatsoever.

The UN spokesman clearly outlines a plan to "reverse" the growth in cases which is as per the WHO report to ensure 70% of all cases are treated in Ebola units.

His exact words are "If we reach these targets - we can turn this epedemic around"

Then explains the formula to achieve that objective, i.e. an additional 2300 beds.

My post demonstrates how his plan is completely incorrect and he (or who ever wrote the report he is reading directly from - or whoever is responsible for the maths in it) has their numbers all entirely incorrect.

It's fairly obvious what I'm pointing out, and fairly simply set out to allow you follow the point. So please, let's not stray from the point being made - an additional 2300 beds - which is what is aimed to achieve by 01.12.2014 isn't next to near enough to achieve the 70% required.

ProfessorPlum · 16-10-2014 04:35PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

No, No, No, No...

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

There's no confusion involved here on my part whatsoever.

The UN spokesman clearly outlines a plan to "reverse" the growth in cases which is as per the WHO report to ensure 70% of all cases are treated in Ebola units.

Then explains the formula to achieve that objective, i.e. an additional 2300 beds.

My post demonstrates how his plan is completely incorrect and he (or who ever wrote the report he is reading directly from - or whoever is responsible for the maths in it) has their numbers all entirely incorrect.

It's fairly obvious what I'm pointing out, and fairly simply set out to allow you follow the point. So please, let's not stray from the point being made - an additional 2300 beds - which is what is aimed to achieve by 01.12.2014 isn't next to near enough to achieve the 70% required.

Well of course the objective is to reverse the growth. But he can't just waltz in there tomorrow and expect it all to happen. His maths is obviously wrong an you are of course right. Sigh.

Your projection assume intervention makes absolutely no difference to numbers becoming infected. We might as well all pack up and head home so.

gozunda · 16-10-2014 04:35PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

So the original case in the US back on the 1st Oct? I would hope lessons have been learned since he was brought in and treated. They are already in the process of tracking the contacts of the recent nurse who travelled.

Btw date irrelevant - you stated ...

Canis Lupus wrote:

....

1: A person isn't infectious until they start showing symptoms and are quickly bedridden there after. Therefore whilst they are mobile they're not infectious and afterwards they won't be walking about much.

In this example as in other subsequent incidences - infected individuals Were Not bedridden - Were Mobile - and Were Walking around!

Canis Lupus wrote:

2: A person from the 1st world with confirmed Ebola or even suspected Ebola isn't likely to be allowed to wander about touching stuff like some kind of Ebola fairy and would generally be conscientious enough to not smear their bodily fluids around in the first place.

Unfortunately being in the 'first world' is no protection against unconfirmed individuals carrying Ebola coming into contact with others and whilst some of those infected may be in basic denial or just be unlucky enough not to have available / proper healtcare - contamination will happen as a result of explosive diarrhoea and projectile vomiting as in the case in the US - no need for any one to 'smear their bodily fluids around' at all :rolleyes:

SeaBreezes · 16-10-2014 04:40PM

At this stage Im starting to believe the conspiracy theorists and this is a planned mass culling. I dont know how to explain the following:

Spanish Nurse whos last patient died of Ebola reports a slight temp and is told go home and rest for a week. No isolation.

American Nurse whos last patient dies of Ebola reports a rise in temp and is OKed to take an internal flight.

nyarlothothep · 16-10-2014 04:47PM

SeaBreezes wrote: »

At this stage Im starting to believe the conspiracy theorists and this is a planned mass culling. I dont know how to explain the following:

Spanish Nurse whos last patient died of Ebola reports a slight temp and is told go home and rest for a week. No isolation.

American Nurse whos last patient dies of Ebola reports a rise in temp and is OKed to take an internal flight.

And let's not forget the Yale students who aren't known to have been in contact with Ebola patients or health workers yet who are reporting feverish symptoms that are indicative of malaria and aren't being quarantined...if it were a conspiracy I would posit the evil cabal of depopulation architects are engineering circumstances which they allow to play out autonomously, thereby 'sinning by deputy.' If anything the world economy is in something of a lethargic slump and a lower population might kick-start it again, that or resources or something...

Peist2007 · 16-10-2014 04:47PM

gozunda wrote: »

Btw date irrelevant - you stated ...

In this example as in other subsequent incidences - infected individuals Were Not bedridden - Were Mobile - and Were Walking around!

Unfortunately being in the 'first world' is no protection against unconfirmed individuals carrying Ebola coming into contact with others and whilst some of those infected may be in basic denial or just be unlucky enough not to have available / proper healtcare - contamination will happen as a result of explosive diarrhoea and projectile vomiting as in the case in the US - no need for any one to 'smear their bodily fluids around' at all :rolleyes:

Disagreeing like you have above means you WANT people to get ebola

emo72 · 16-10-2014 04:48PM

im gonna stock up.

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2014 05:00PM

I'm not sure if this has been posted but a nurse in Paris who looked after a MSF nurse who was brought back for treatment is now suspected to have ebola. I'm surprised at this. I understand how it happened in Dallas, a local hospital that didn't have the resources and training but as far as I was aware the hospital in Paris has a specialised unit with BSL 4 facilities. Also, the patient he/she treated was declared cured on the 4th October. I presume that means that an ebola test performed on that date was negative? So the amount of virus in the blood would have been decreasing before being totally cleared. If so, and this nurse has ebola, then he/she must have been infected a few weeks ago.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20141016/french-nurse-suspected-of-having-ebola

Canis Lupus · 16-10-2014 05:05PM

gozunda wrote: »

Btw date irrelevant - you stated ...

In this example as in other subsequent incidences - infected individuals Were Not bedridden - Were Mobile - and Were Walking around!

Unfortunately being in the 'first world' is no protection against unconfirmed individuals carrying Ebola coming into contact with others and whilst some of those infected may be in basic denial or just be unlucky enough not to have available / proper healtcare - contamination will happen as a result of explosive diarrhoea and projectile vomiting as in the case in the US - no need for any one to 'smear their bodily fluids around' at all :rolleyes:

Well this was patient no1 for the US and he vomited, as per your article, as they put him into the ambulance to take him to hospital That's not what I would describe as a mobile person.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how any further cases develop. It is worth noting however that Mr Duncans family despite living with him have at this stage showed no signs of infection and I would expect they would have been in close proximity to him including toilet and door handles and all that jazz. They do unfortunately still have some time to wait out before getting the all clear (which must of course be awful).

Streetwalker · 16-10-2014 05:12PM

9000 infected now, 9 fuc king thousand. Holy sh it.

My name is URL · 16-10-2014 05:27PM

Well let's hope not all of them are fucking

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2014 05:30PM

Streetwalker wrote: »

9000 infected now, 9 fuc king thousand. Holy sh it.

It's forecasted to be 10,000 new cases a week within a matter of months. And still people think this isn't a serious situation.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:34PM

Did anyone hear on the radio today that they have taken suspected ebola case Nigerian off plane. Where was that? I thought Dublin? Guy sneezing in shop today huge ones. I walked other side of shop lol. Chinese have right idea with masks.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:35PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well let's hope not all of them are fucking

God are they all **** king?

wexie · 16-10-2014 05:38PM

crannglas wrote: »

God are they all **** king?

It's okay, as long as they're all ****ing eachother they won't infect any new people :cool:

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 05:38PM

crannglas wrote: »

Did anyone hear on the radio today that they have taken suspected ebola case Nigerian off plane. Where was that? I thought Dublin? Guy sneezing in shop today huge ones. I walked other side of shop lol. Chinese have right idea with masks.

ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:40PM

wexie wrote: »

It's okay, as long as they're all ****ing eachother they won't infect any new people :cool:

lol that would be some sexy time. Not just usual fluids and noises but a whole new amount. Snot spit and coughing.

I am pie · 16-10-2014 05:40PM

Creative Juices wrote: »

ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

Not Dublin, Paris. Air France flight.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:41PM

Creative Juices wrote: »

ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

Yeah but spread by fluids. So pardon me if I step away and give him dirty looks and strong scared face making him feel terrible.

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 05:41PM

emo72 wrote: »

im gonna stock up.

again? Have you not got enough in your store since H1N1, SARS, Swine Flu and the Euro collapse?

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 05:44PM

I am pie wrote: »

Not Dublin, Paris. Air France flight.

Huh?

I replied to this "Guy sneezing in shop today huge ones. I walked other side of shop lol. Chinese have right idea with masks."

I replied that ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:46PM

Creative Juices wrote: »

Huh?

I replied to this "Guy sneezing in shop today huge ones. I walked other side of shop lol. Chinese have right idea with masks."

I replied that ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

I think that was meant for me, telling me it was France and not Dublin they took the Nigerian off. I only caught the tail end of story.

crannglas · 16-10-2014 05:47PM

Creative Juices wrote: »

Huh?

I replied to this "Guy sneezing in shop today huge ones. I walked other side of shop lol. Chinese have right idea with masks."

I replied that ebola is not a virus of the respiratory system.

I think that was meant for me, telling me it was France and not Dublin they took the Nigerian off. I only caught the tail end of story.

Creative Juices · 16-10-2014 05:49PM

crannglas wrote: »

I think that was meant for me, telling me it was France and not Dublin they took the Nigerian off. I only caught the tail end of story.

I think this is meant for you

w3.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

Turtwig · 16-10-2014 05:49PM

The two "aeroplanes" will give us our best indication of just how contagious this disease is. Assuming of course both carriers were infectious with ebola at the time. If almost no passengers get affected then there's little reason to worry about this disease (or a full blown outbreak). If a significant proportion of them are affected then we have a dangerous epidemic on our hand. Current research of the disease would indicate that only a few, if any, people on both planes would be infected by the virus.

One thing I don't like in the media reporting is the emphasis that the outbreak is still spreading in Liberia, Sierra Leone but no mention of Nigeria having contained it. Now more than ever people need to be made aware of the differences on the ground between the various nations. The primary countries infected will likely see a doubling of cases every 4 weeks. People also need to know that rate isn't expected in countries where an outbreak might be just beginning.

Ebola virus outbreak

Comments