Ebola virus outbreak

Ebola Cola wrote: »

It's not an epidemic then as it isn't widespread.

I think you may be thinking of a "Pandemic"

Online dictionary

Pandemic

(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.

From the CDC ...

The 2014 Ebola epidemic is the largest in history, affecting multiple countries in West Africa.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html?mobile=nocontent

has another person been brought back to one of the european coutries to be treated for the disease, or did i get the news wrong

323 wrote: »

At this stage really don't see what all the fuss is with this disease. Especially all the hype and sensationalist tabloid journalism that seems to be aimed at creating panic and fueling the CT nuts.


Although Ebola is without a doubt devastating and a horrible and frightening disease, but it doesn't come near to making it into even the top 100 killers.


Agree with the quote in CEADAOIN's post that the death toll is probably much higher than being reported. But absolute worst case it has not yet killed even half the number that malaria kills in Africa every week (about 3000 every day, mostly kids).


Not to mention the many 1000's of other deaths every week in Africa from treatable diseases. Unfortunately reality is, its Africa, few really care, least of all their own administrations/governments.

Exponential growth is what makes it such a threat in West Africa. The number of cases are doubling every 3 to 4 weeks. At that rate it won't take long to catch up to malaria, which is at least treatable with a lower death rate.

It was predicted that worse case scenario would see 20,000 cases by now. With the official number of 13,000 assumed to be underestimated by 2.5 then this would appear to be correct, if not a little lower than reality. If it becomes endemic then it will kill a lot of people every year in West Africa as well as potentially sparking individual cases and potentially outbreaks in the rest of the world. If it spread to parts of India for example, and wasnt contained, then it could be a disaster.

Here is what 2 experts say about what might happen if it becomes endemic

If none of those happen, they predict, this is what will happen instead. Ebola will become endemic: a permanent health risk, waxing and waning unpredictably, in an area without the health care personnel to control it or the surveillance to track it. They envision:

dozens of sparks landing in the U.S. and other developed countries, not just from West Africa but from all over the world
healthcare workers won’t come to work
cancer patients and HIV-infected persons and children with asthma can’t get their medicines because 40 percent of generic drugs in the U.S. come from India, where production and shipping have halted
refugees, under pressure from civil unrest, insurrection, famine, and economic collapse, [pour] across every border – some sick, some healthy, some incubating?
It is not guaranteed, they say, that a successful vaccine against Ebola can be “developed, produced, and distributed” in time, and in large enough amounts, to throw a fence of containment around the disease.

If not, they warn, it is possible that the rest of the world’s reaction could trigger the next global financial crisis.

It really is imperative that it is brought under control in West Africa. There have been some reports that the infection rate might be slowing in Liberia which would be good news.

If anything, the 'fear mongering' in the media is avoiding mentioning just how dire the situation is there and decides to focus on the perceived threat to the US and other developed countries. As usual, people don't really care unless something affects them directly.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/ebola-endemic/

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So he has Malaria ... Why the adding on of Ebola ? Guessing anywhere then can jam in Ebola fear is a good news story.

Well it is possible to have malaria and ebola at the same time. The symptoms for both can be similar so I guess because the person has recently returned from an ebola affected area, they are ruling it out to be on the safe side. Or maybe the person has had contact with an infected person.

I don't know why they need to announce the fact that they are doing the test though. They usually turn out to be negative anyway. They should wait until the results are known.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes I understand he hypothetical could have it. But the most lightly scenario is he has Malaria, And the Ebola tag on is to generate a news headline to create a story where there is not one.

Well it's the hospital who are deciding to do the ebola test and they obviously aren't trying to generate a news headline. It's not like sky news just made it up. The situation is that they are testing someone for ebola and that is what is being reported. I don't see any fear being generated from that article.

In contrast, The Mirror have gone with the 'let's all panic' angle. The headline of the story is that she 'may have had contact with airline passengers in London' prior to arriving in Belfast and officials are now looking into tracing them. As if it is already a confirmed case

Heaven Young Snag wrote: »

For small country with an tiny and under resourced defence forces we've always punched above our weight, and now again we're stepping up to the plate and sending troops out to Africa to help fight this virus

STORY HERE

According to the Irish times it is only 3 troops being sent. Is that punching above our weight? Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing to help but I don't think we are going to be changing the situation with 3 people.

Doubt if the health service there has the money to give to those people. One of the reasons the disease has remained unchecked.

Might not seem much to us but in a country whose basic services are funded by international donations, its a lot. To put it in perspective, most doctors earn less than $200 a month, nurses – $100 and teachers receive a monthly salary of about $30.
For the porters and cleaners mentioned in that article, $100/week is a fortune.


But on seeing that article my first thought was. Africa, guaranteed safe bet someone is getting that money, just not the people it was promised to.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

According to the Irish times it is only 3 troops being sent. Is that punching above our weight? Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing to help but I don't think we are going to be changing the situation with 3 people.

Haven't you ever seen a Rambo film? It's like that, Rambo doctors, but there's three of them. I imagine they'll have the whole thing wrapped up less than 90 minutes after touchdown.

MadYaker wrote: »

America is now Ebola free despite all the ridiculous predictions of doom on this thread. Maybe that's why it's gone quiet, people have finally realised it isn't a real threat to us.

The situation in West Africa is still bad so the US is only ebola free until the next infected person arrives from there. With increased monitoring of arrivals from affected countries, these cases should be spotted pretty soon and admitted to hospital before they become very infectious so there isn't much to worry about for now.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The situation in West Africa is still bad so the US is only ebola free until the next infected person arrives from there. With increased monitoring of arrivals from affected countries, these cases should be spotted pretty soon and admitted to hospital before they become very infectious so there isn't much to worry about for now.

It's pretty widely acknowledged that arrival screening will make little to no difference in the numbers of cases detected at points if entry. The best hope is by educating the travelling public about symptoms and sign to look out for. Or of course they can just try locking up all arriving passengers for 21 days

PucaMama wrote: »

so you think because america is ok thats it problem over

Is that what I said? No, it isn't.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I meant the monitoring protocol that has been introduced. Everyone returning from those areas must report their temperature daily for 21 days.

Yes, agree education and self monitoring would appear to be the way to go rather than wasting money on airport screening and forcibly quarantining well people without good reason.

Quite worrying news out of Mali regarding the recent deaths there. There seems to have been either a degree if complacency or perhaps denial which resulted in further spread of the virus.