Undue worry over ebola or due diligence

Ebola is undoubatbly an unpleasant thing, but it seemingly doesn't spread that easily

Tell that to the thousands of dead in Africa plus the dead/infected/suspected in the US and Spain :)
Currently there are, what, 15 in quarantine in Spain from one nurse maybe touching her face with a glove?
 
Ive recently read a book that said there is good evidence that the bubonic plagues betweeen 1300 and 1600s were more akin to ebola than bubonic. With the ease of travel nowadays compared to back then it is rather worrying.
 
Ah yes. Bbc were interviewing parents outside the school gates this morning.

The same BBC that ran a stupid "how to stay safe from ebola" article yesterday? It's almost like they are starting on the Fox route of creating the news themselves.

Ebola is undoubatbly an unpleasant thing, but it seemingly doesn't spread that easily from what I heard
Tell that to the thousands of dead in Africa plus the dead/infected/suspected in the US and Spain :)
Currently there are, what, 15 in quarantine in Spain from one nurse maybe touching her face with a glove?

Both those things are true. Ebola really isn't that easy to catch in a country with a decent sanitation system where people don't routinely touch dead bodies. But Sierra Leone is a very poor country and the local tradition is to touch dead bodies. The isolated outbreaks in US and Spain ain't going anywhere - that's the point of the quarantine.

Nigeria just got declared ebola free and they are a lot closer to Sierra Leone than we are. A crucial difference is they have oil and therefore a lot more money than their neighbours.
 
It worries me more that sooner or later those in this world that would wish us harm will realise that they can use this outbreak to further their own agendas.
 
I was thinking more of terrorist organisations deliberately infecting people and sending them here to mingle in public places. But hey, we know they wouldn't dream of doing that don't we.
 
I was thinking more of terrorist organisations deliberately infecting people and sending them here to mingle in public places. But hey, we know they wouldn't dream of doing that don't we.

Also, it wouldn't work. There's a difference between contagious and infectious ;)
 
I genuinely hope you're right.

Well, it's basically a matter of fact. So we're all good.

Anthrax on the other hand is infectious so you're quite safe locked in a room with lots of people with anthrax. Just like you're safe in an area where there's lots of ebola in the air as long as you don't touch anything.
 
The isolated outbreaks in US and Spain ain't going anywhere - that's the point of the quarantine.

Teresa Romero is being treated in a Madrid hospital. She is one of six people placed in quarantine since Monday while more than 50 healthcare workers are under observation because of their contact with the nurse and two repatriated Catholic missionaries who died of Ebola in Madrid in August and September.

What's the difference between 'quarantine' & 'observation'?
 
But think of the children

If it saves just one ...

(To the hard of understanding - these comments are made to point out how we tend to over react to these situations and are not to be taken seriously)
 
Typical of Chas - Heatless. What about the kittens, will no-one think of the kittens
h1A8F52F2
 
What's the difference between 'quarantine' & 'observation'?

I suspect it's a matter of degree. Quarantine will be isolation with airlocks and stuff. The ones under observation are pretty unlikely to have caught anything and very unlikely to pass it on to others in the group unless they are really stupid so they can all be kept in one place.
 
After we've gone, kittens will rule the earth
Thousands of years ago, the Egyptians worshipped cats as Gods,
Cats have never forgotten this fact ;)

Back to the opening post, I guess its a case of better safe than sorry,
and with the owners in "quarantine" who would be brave enough to feed a dog,
suspected of being a carrier?
 
Should have known we could rely on the Mail.....
 
Back to the opening post, I guess its a case of better safe than sorry,
and with the owners in "quarantine" who would be brave enough to feed a dog,
suspected of being a carrier?

I kind of get that - although, I'd have thought that a simple blood test would be enough to establish whether it was carrying anything or not before doing anything that drastic.
 
I kind of get that - although, I'd have thought that a simple blood test would be enough to establish whether it was carrying anything or not before doing anything that drastic.
I'm not sure how long the results would take TBH?
Even if its a few days, there is still the animal husbandry, to consider,
as above who would feed it?

I don't necessarily agree with the action,
(Perhaps on balance I do)
but I can see why they did it.
 
I kind of get that - although, I'd have thought that a simple blood test would be enough to establish whether it was carrying anything or not before doing anything that drastic.

From the "article" on the BBC, it seems nobody really knows whether dogs can carry ebola and infect humans. I'm against animal experiments as much as I'm against needlessly killing dogs but it does seem like keeping it under observation might have been a better idea.
 
doctors are now saying you can catch it from a sneeze, so airborne? I think we should be worried - look how quickly it has spread in Africa. All spread by travellers.
 
I think the problem is, they don't know how its spreading, and as a virus, there is a good chance its mutating, or has mutated , after all it was first discovered in the 70's i believe.

I find it hard to believe that a nurse has made the sort of basic mistake they were talking about yesterday with a well known killer virus
 
Last edited:
Back
Top