Ebola doesn't spread very easily once symptomatic and you can't catch it from an asymptomatic carrier, even in an environment with poor hygiene. They have to be ill before it spreads.
and the site receives a small commission
Ebola Virus
- Thread starter gramps
- Start date
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Surely that's the point, it spreads in deepest darkest Africa because of poor hygiene. My point is that there are (a lot!) of habitats in the not so nice areas of London certainly and other parts of the UK undoubtedly where you'd be shocked at the level of hygiene, and that provides exactly the right environment to start the spread.
Theses are the places where the people who 'clean' offices and work in restaurants/canteens etc work. These are the people who when they are feeling ill cannot afford to take time off sick, and thus likely to spread the virus. Yes, I agree it may be easier to stop spread once it's started, although I am concerned that the "I've got rights' attitude may well make life more difficult, but I have seen nothing that is going to prevent the import of the virus to the UK.
One person with it is one too many, and frankly even the best odds of 50/50 don't fill me full of joy.
Because there is no medical control on passengers entering the UK we are at risk of at least it getting here. The consequences of that, no matter how well it is controlled if it does arrive are potentially catastrophic.
Theses are the places where the people who 'clean' offices and work in restaurants/canteens etc work. These are the people who when they are feeling ill cannot afford to take time off sick, and thus likely to spread the virus. Yes, I agree it may be easier to stop spread once it's started, although I am concerned that the "I've got rights' attitude may well make life more difficult, but I have seen nothing that is going to prevent the import of the virus to the UK.
One person with it is one too many, and frankly even the best odds of 50/50 don't fill me full of joy.
Because there is no medical control on passengers entering the UK we are at risk of at least it getting here. The consequences of that, no matter how well it is controlled if it does arrive are potentially catastrophic.
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember a few years ago, when bird flu was considered a threat, there was a thermal imaging camera at Heraklion airport and every incoming passenger was scanned to check for a higher than normal temperature. If someone showed up they were (apparently - didn't see it happen) whisked away to isolation for tests. Technology would make it quite easy to scan and screen everyone arriving in the UK if it was thought necessary to do so and even easier to scan all passengers arriving from areas where the infection is rife. OK, it only highlights those showing a fever but that would be better than nothing.
Why are they potentially catastrophic?
There have been cases in large cities in Western Africa (now and previously) and nothing catastrophic has happened. There were cases in Moscow. Nothing catastrophic happened.
I'm not worried about ebola at all. It's a tabloid spook story.
Why are people so keen on clinging to the Hollywoodesque idea that it's some kind of unusually threatening disease?
At the moment we have no idea how long it can live outside its own habitat,I have been to as you say deepest darkest Africa,and hygiene believe me can not be compared to anything we have in the UK.
As I have said fear,panic,and ignorance is any virus best friend
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Margaret Chann will be relieved.
I don't think Margaret Chann has said anything particularly reactionary. In the quote you posted earlier she doesn't say anything we didn't already know. It's a big outbreak and some people have managed to fly while ill. Important for the WHO to take action and to monitor but no cause for immediate panic. I'm not even sure why you quoted her as her words are quite unremarkable.
She's not talking about threats to civilisation or anything ridiculous like that. She's commenting on a relatively large (but slow burning) outbreak that is obviously within the interests of the WHO to bring under control as its causing a lot of problem for people living rurally in tropical jungles.
Will we come back to this thread in a few months when the outbreak has petered out and have this conversation again?
Last edited:
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
At last two infected people are already in the US, albeit allegedly in a Tropical Diseases Unit.
Yes there are infected medical staff being looked after in the US. So, what's your point?
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You misunderstand me. It's not the ebola I am concerned about particularly, it's the effect, specifically panic! That's whats likely to be catastrophic. Over stressing the NHS, disorder in A&E departments, people exercising their over developed sense of entitlement.
Yes, it may well be a 'tabloid spooky' story, to an extent I agree with you on that. You think the stories are bad now? Watch what happens if there is a story to report in the UK.
Having said I agree in part on the scare story, it does highlight that we are woefully ill equipped to deal with an epidemic in the UK.
Simon, having seen both, there's not a huge amount to chose from in some of the hovels I have had to go into in London. The whole UK does not live to the same standards of hygiene and cleanliness that most of us do!
In any case, you'll be aware that a doctor and an aid worker have now been infected. You may well have seen the sky news reports from the hospital they were infected in. If so, you'll have seen the precautions, and yet they still were infected.
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
It's lost on you.
No, really. What's your point?
There are two infected people being looked after in the US. So what?
The disease isn't that much of a big deal for the US and UK. It's a problem mainly for rural West/Central Africa where there is poor sanitation & medical infrastructure.
MitoG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 28
- Name
- Gurdeep
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Absolutely agree.
Here's a recent news piece from Nature journal about the Ebola outbreak. It mentions that vaccinations for ebola exists since 2005, but it needs some proper funding for further testing.
Original article
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I believe (that is I read on the CDC website) that the problem with the vaccinations is that is a live virus vaccine and has an infection rate of about 5% from the vaccine itself - more funding is needed in order to get that % down
completely seperate tho that Merck are also looking at whether a vaccine featuring Ebola Reston live virus (which has no ill effects in people) would stimulate antibodies towards Ebola Zaire (broadly like the work with cowpox to create a smallpox vacine back in the day) - however that research has only just started and needs considerable work before a viable vaccine is produced
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
the point you are missing gramps is that ebola hasn't spread to the USA , these people werent wandering about in the general population infected and spreading the outbreak, as Ghoti says
infected medical personel from the african outbreak have been shipped to the US for treatment - they are no risk to the USA population.
Still I know we are wasting our time trying to explain this as you seem determined to panic , and see the worst regardless of what the facts actually indicate.
In the outbreak in the 90s /00s there were several cases in moscow (all of whom were infected in zaire before flying to russia) there were no cases in the general russian population. As I've repeatedly said because it doesnt spread by aerosol (that is coughs and sneezes essentially ) there isnt a major risk to a population with good sanitation and good medical care and the facilities for clinical disposal of dead bodies.
Last edited:
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Did I say they were?
"no risk" ... quite a claim ... even the hospital in the US where the two are being treated say "virtually"!
Sorry to disappoint you but there's no panic here ... just a realisation of the implications of such a deadly virus and a global community.
It is thought that sneezing directly into someone's face can cross infect ... what of sneezing between the seats of an aircraft onto the face of the person(s) in front, or of touching sneezed matter with an open sore or cut on the hand?
Look, nothing's going to happen over here. At the worst we'll get a few isolated cases in the west from people who have travelled or worked in stricken west African areas.
We'll all have forgotten about it in a few months.
The real humanitarian concern is the stretching of already inadequate healthcare infrastructure in western Africa, and the knock on effects that will have beyond dealing with ebola itself.
We'll all have forgotten about it in a few months.
The real humanitarian concern is the stretching of already inadequate healthcare infrastructure in western Africa, and the knock on effects that will have beyond dealing with ebola itself.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you implied it - if you knew they weren't why mention it at all
same thing - the difference is merely semantic - they are no risk to the general population of the US, and only a risk to those providing direct care for them if they (that is the care givers) fail to follow medical protocol. Being in the US instead of the African bush they have access to racal suits, decontamination facilities and so forth
so if you're not panicking why are you banging on about the "implications of such a deadly virus" blah - without seemingly considering that its only deadly if you catch it , and catching it is really quite difficult - the same could be said of Aids , or Rabies, or Q fever, or Lassa fever, or SARS, or Avian Flu etc etc (several hundred others)
It requires large droplet transfer of bodily fluid - so sneezing directly in someone's face to the point where you covered them in mucus in their eyes and mouth etc could be transfer method - but call me old fashioned I usually use a tissue to stop that from happening - the flu virus for example can transfer from aerosol - that is ithe teeny drops that evade the tissue, ebola can't. (well substrain Eboloa zaire mayinga probably can but according to the WHO this isn't the substrain we are talking about here , the thing about EVDm is that it incapacitates so fast and kills quickly after that that it doesn't tend to spread much - all the outbreaks of it to date have been limited to rural villages )
the virus can live for only a few seconds away from the host so old sneezed matter isn't going to be an issue - newly sneezed mucus could be, but again I don't make a habit of going round fondling other people's bogies and it would have to be actual mucus , not the microscopic drops (aerosol again).
And here's a thought - AIDS infects through large droplet transfer too - and despite the massive number of sufferers no one has ever caught it from a sneeze on an airline
Last edited:
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
(Amesh Adalja, a member of the public health committee of the Infectious Disease Society of America and an infectious disease doctor at the University of Pittsburgh.)
He, like you, goes on to say that there is 'no need to worry' ... however there either is a risk or there isn't.
Ever come out of the gents and not washed your hands ... seen how many others don't wash their hands?
Ever accidentally poked your finger through the toilet paper?
Ever scratched your backside?
Ever cut your finger and not had a plaster?
Ever picked a scab?
I could go on.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes but as I said before theres a much greater (though still infinitesimal) risk of contracting AIDS by that route - but people don't
no , and yes but so what unless you are planning to interact with them in the next five second after they come out of the gents - do you generally hang out outsode the gents shaking peoples hands ? - if so you may have more pressing problems than an ebola outbreak
Not within 5 seconds of shaking hands with a stranger
yes but again so what - those aren't risk factors for contracting ebola unless you are into some deeply strange behavior
you could, but its best that byou don't as you are talking rubbish and making yourself look hysterical (and silly) especially for someone who claims not to be panicking
the reason Amesh Adalja says its a theoretical risk is that if you were to sake hands with someone with poor hygiene and Ebola, then immediately (that is within 5 seconds or so) , touch your eye or mouth you could theoretically transfer a large droplet of their bodily fluid to your system. However the reason he used the term theoretically is that its theoretical to the point of pure horses***... in practice that isn't how Ebola spreads (if it did there would be considerably more than the circa thousand cases and 670 deaths in 6 months) - also as I said above theoretically you could get AIDS like that too - but no one ever has (like wise rabies and a whole host of other viral diseases)
The way nearly all of the infected people in Africa have contracted the disease is
a) eating bush meat and/or interacting with dead or dying animals found in the rainforest
b) interacting with the corpses of ebola sufferers - this is traditional in west African funerals but not a good idea with a capital N
c) Taking close personal care of a loved one in their home - e.g cleaning up their vomit, blood etc without taking proper hygiene precautions
d) Acting as a health care professional and either being very unlucky or making mistakes (or both)
e) Theoretically (again) sex and foreplay - this is theoretical because the chances of someone suffering from Ebola being up for a quickie are negligible
a&b aren't going to be an option in a western setting , and the risks of c&d will be much reduced by the healthcare infrastructure and the logistics which make it easy to get sufferers to proper care
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
CDC (and WHO - although WHO don't say 5 seconds, they say a very short time - hell even if we assume its a minute , how often do you shake hands with someone within a minute of one of you going to the toilet - I'm presuming you don't sit around scratching your arse in public)
this is a completely pointless argument - CDC and WHO are staffed by global experts, Dr Amesh Adalja is a prominent expert they (and virtually every other prominent expert in the field) say the same thing ... but apparently you know better.
End of the day you seem to want to be scared and to scare others by repeating tabloid based hysteria - the former I have no issue with , if you want to believe that the global apocalypse is upon us then that's your prerogative , the latter is irresponsible , which is why we are having this discussion at all.
My final word on this is if anyone else is scared by the stuff some posters are spouting, I'd urge you google to the WHO and CDC websites and do your own research, and on that note I'm done with this pathetic debate
this is a completely pointless argument - CDC and WHO are staffed by global experts, Dr Amesh Adalja is a prominent expert they (and virtually every other prominent expert in the field) say the same thing ... but apparently you know better.
End of the day you seem to want to be scared and to scare others by repeating tabloid based hysteria - the former I have no issue with , if you want to believe that the global apocalypse is upon us then that's your prerogative , the latter is irresponsible , which is why we are having this discussion at all.
My final word on this is if anyone else is scared by the stuff some posters are spouting, I'd urge you google to the WHO and CDC websites and do your own research, and on that note I'm done with this pathetic debate
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
So at the end of the day there is no medical basis whatsoever for your statement that I am "talking rubbish and making yourself look hysterical (and silly)" when talking about the possibility of transmission of the virus in surroundings such as an aircraft.
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting to look at the broken down mortality stats for the current outbreak. Overall mortality is around 56%.
As high as 80% in rural areas.
As low as 25% in Nigeria, where health infrastructure is better, but still nowhere near as good as in the western world. So even in the unlikely event that we have cases in the UK we can probably expect much lower mortality than 25%.
Are we still panicking?
As high as 80% in rural areas.
As low as 25% in Nigeria, where health infrastructure is better, but still nowhere near as good as in the western world. So even in the unlikely event that we have cases in the UK we can probably expect much lower mortality than 25%.
Are we still panicking?
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
No panic here ... even with "probably" 
Incidentally I see that there is a call for the experimental drug being used on the two Americans to be used in Africa ... I wonder what the chances of that are? Mind you if it really is found to be a successful treatment how good would that be
Incidentally I see that there is a call for the experimental drug being used on the two Americans to be used in Africa ... I wonder what the chances of that are? Mind you if it really is found to be a successful treatment how good would that be
the black fox
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,082
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
we are all doomed ,doomed i tell ya ,infamy infamy (you know the rest of the words ) 
People engaged in online arguments are more likely to die from heart attacks than from contracting Ebola.
Source : The internets.
I say this all the time. The people who panic are the ones who always die first. You just need to watch zombie movies to know this is the truth.
Source : The internets.
I say this all the time. The people who panic are the ones who always die first. You just need to watch zombie movies to know this is the truth.
There's no need to panic in most 1st world countries. Like I said earlier though, if it gets to somewhere like India with the kind of population density and poor sanitation they have, it's going to be...well, probably good for grave diggers and that's about it. I can be concerned about places other than where I live!
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
In regard to the viable infectivity of the Ebola virus outside of a host; taken from a Pathogen Safety Data Sheet:
SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.
(Lyophilisation, in simple terms is freeze drying)
Source: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php
SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.
(Lyophilisation, in simple terms is freeze drying)
Source: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually not "just" it seems he was back for a while.
On the plus side the experimental vaccine maybe a welcome breakthrough - let's see how the stocks work in Africa.
OP
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
That's good news
archangel
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,024
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No