Ebola outbreak

rwo power wrote:

Nishy wrote:Basically because its contained in a very specific part of the world right now. Its yet to affect 5 countries, Swine flu affected 6/7 continents of the world.

Actually the difference is that swine flu is transmitted via air, which makes it *really* serious, while Ebola is only transmitted via body fluids.

Plus, to put things a bit in perspective - the normal flu (!) kills 15 000 (fifteen thousand!!) people per year in Germany alone. So you should consider the (real) flu (not common cold, btw) a bit more problematic than an infection that is pretty difficult to transmit in comparison.

Out of how many infected, though? The flu's mortality rate certainly isn't 50% and we have a vaccine available for it, unlike ebola.

The major issue with containing ebola isn't necessarily how it's transmitted, but how long it can be transmitted. The incubation period for the disease can be quite long (up to 21 days) which means it can be hard to detect prior to people traveling to another location AND it remains in the body and communicable for up to 7 weeks after the patient has recovered from it initially... meaning that even nearly 2 months after recovering a person may still be able to pass ebola on to another person via sex or other contact where bodily fluids may be shared.

On the other hand, an influenza is very easily transmissible - and the mortality varies with the strain. If you look at the good ol' Spanish flu H1N1 pandemy of 1918/19, it is estimated it had a letality of "only" 2.5%, but nonetheless, it managed to infect such an amount of people that the death toll amassed to 25 mio to 70 mio people (depending on the publication, although the bigger numbers are according to newer studies, so probably more likely).

As long as Ebola will stay contained to fluid-only transmission, it is extremely unlikely that it will cause a death toll as the flu can cause due to the fact that it is transmissible by aerosol.

IMO a death toll of 15000 people per year with an infection that is assumed to have a letality of only 0.1% (as assumed for the standard influenza) is actually pretty frightening as it doesn't bode well if the virus mutates into one of the "killer versions" by recombination in either birds or pigs.

So one can only hope that there will not be genetic mix-ups between Ebola and influenza (which *might* happen in persons who are infected with both) that escape after getting transmissible via air.

I read that the virus has a high risk of mutating. If it does mutate into being airborne, it's a wrap.

A photo of an Ebola isolation method in a Spanish hospital:

o_O They really can be glad that the virus isn't airborne yet....

yea but guys.. why is it that, we have been hearing a lot of news that someone gets rushed to hospital. i just heard a cop in texas now got rushed to hospital. so, surely he has not have had fluid contacts...


my worries is that ebola is transferable from air too...

Well, one doesn't know whether those people "rushed to hospital" really are infected or whether it is just a panic reaction.

One of the dangers in such a situation is that there will be a lot of misinformation and conjecture by people who only read stuff in the media which is prone to exaggerate to get more readers. (Not only sex sells, but panic stories sell, too.)

If Ebola really is transferable by air(doesn't seem so) then it's most likely going to affect Europe and Asia before America

Imagine this turning into an actual movie style disease epidemic

Though it is getting worrisome reading the latest news about it, specially about the mutation part. Will beyond panic time if it goes airborne specially with the 70% mortality rate ffs.

Art Morte wrote:

So, when should we start panicking?

if it was air borne I'd be concerned by now! Since it hasn't mutated yet and is transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluid I am not at all concerned and I do not see a pandemic of any sort becoming an issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/texan-healthcare-worker-ebola-thomas-duncan-us

Second confirmed Ebola case in Texas, one of the healthcare workers who treated the first patient.

I find it worrying that it's the health workers who are contracting the virus... they should be the ones who are best prepared to avoid catching it.

Art Morte wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/texan-healthcare-worker-ebola-thomas-duncan-us

Second confirmed Ebola case in Texas, one of the healthcare workers who treated the first patient.

I find it worrying that it's the health workers who are contracting the virus... they should be the ones who are best prepared to avoid catching it.

that's probably because the guy was first treated without keeping the possibility of Ebola in mind, they only checked him when he came back with worse symptoms.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Art Morte wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/texan-healthcare-worker-ebola-thomas-duncan-us

Second confirmed Ebola case in Texas, one of the healthcare workers who treated the first patient.

I find it worrying that it's the health workers who are contracting the virus... they should be the ones who are best prepared to avoid catching it.

that's probably because the guy was first treated without keeping the possibility of Ebola in mind, they only checked him when he came back with worse symptoms.

I got the impression this second person was treating the first Ebola patient after they knew he had Ebola.

Also, in Spain, as a precaution, they have put 16 nurses and doctors in quarantine who have been treating the nurse who got the virus. It's not enough information to draw definite conclusion, but it kind of gives the image that the virus' capability of spreading is worrying.

I think it is more worrying that obviously the nurses and doctors are not properly educated to safeguard themselves or that there are not enough protective measures available. From what I read in various sources, the hospital in Spain had to do with make-shift protective gear and isolation rooms.

Of course another problem is that the first onset of the illness looks more like a severe cold, so people probably don't take it serious right away, thus getting the chance to infect others before they get isolated.

rwo power wrote:1. I think it is more worrying that obviously the nurses and doctors are not properly educated to safeguard themselves or that there are not enough protective measures available. From what I read in various sources, the hospital in Spain had to do with make-shift protective gear and isolation rooms.

2. Of course another problem is that the first onset of the illness looks more like a severe cold, so people probably don't take it serious right away, thus getting the chance to infect others before they get isolated.

1. This really worries me, that the professional people are seemingly so exposed to the virus. Even if their protective gear isn't top-notch, it's still miles better than what anyone else will have. Furthermore, I remember some expert quote saying that "you'd basically have to lick a person with Ebola to catch it" and even if the healthcare people lack precise training for this sort of pandemic, they should have good awareness of risk and methods of working. They wouldn't go about licking the patients. Yet they seem to be coming under severe risk of contracting the virus in spite of their basic professionalism and experience dealing with viruses.

2. Yeah, apparently the Spanish nurse with the virus reported her fever symptoms three times and only at the final time, after having suffered from fever for six days and when her condition got much worse, was being taken seriously. Seems incredible considering that they knew she had been treating an Ebola patient.

Actually it is not about licking a patient - it is about getting the infectious material (blood, body fluids) into your bloodstream (prick yourself on a used needle or scalpel or get infected matter into even tiny wounds on your skin) or on your mucosa (eyes, mouth, nose are possible points of entry when you get sneezed at or coughed at by a patient).

Oh, and another thing - protective gear doesn't help you one tiny bit if you are not properly educated to get out of it safely after you were exposed to the virus. After all, you need to leave it without compromising yourself by touching the outside of it.

rwo power wrote:Actually it is not about licking a patient - it is about getting the infectious material (blood, body fluids) into your bloodstream (prick yourself on a used needle or scalpel or get infected matter into even tiny wounds on your skin) or on your mucosa (eyes, mouth, nose are possible points of entry when you get sneezed at or coughed at by a patient).

Oh, and another thing - protective gear doesn't help you one tiny bit if you are not properly educated to get out of it safely after you were exposed to the virus. After all, you need to leave it without compromising yourself by touching the outside of it.

But that's the thing, you would expect healthcare professionals to be aware of this, like, healthcare 101, yet they're still getting infected.

It's such basic stuff that you could compare it to a professional footballer being aware of the offside rule, they just all know it. That's what scares me, that I don't really believe the doctors & nurses have done some rookie mistakes, but the power of the virus is just underestimated.

Well, your comparison is probably quite apt - even though footballers are aware of the offside rule, they are still often enough found offside...

I recently saw a short programme on TV where a doctor actually complained that he was never taught how to properly use his protective suit, so it seems that there are indeed quite some problems with the medical personal knowing (or rather not knowing) the basics.

There's a new Ebola suspicion in the U.S., this time in Boston(!). I'm reading this from a Finnish site right now, so apologies for no link, but it's saying that the Harvard Vanguard hospital has been temporarily closed and now the patient has been quarantined in a separate building. The patient is showing some Ebola-like symptoms and has been to Liberia recently.

Here's the info in English at reuters.com:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/12/us-health-ebola-massachusetts-idUSKCN0I10UZ20141012

this week emerging report has been even more serious and rigorous than i thought. this is really serious though, that i think both CDC, WHO and appropriate departments in charge all over the world has seriously underestimated and hopelessly neglected, and i really fear for the worst.

so the US health official now says  that we would have had vaccine by now if not for budget cuts...

JespSwe wrote:so the US health official now says  that we would have had vaccine by now if not for budget cuts...

What do you expect? There is no money in a vaccine for a disease mainly endemic in the 3rd world, just as there is no money in researching cures for orphan diseases...

What happens when India, middle East or even China get Ebola? some scary shit.

If Ebola comes to India, Half of the population ( mostly the poor ones) will go within 3 years. No offense.

Nishy wrote:If Ebola comes to India, Half of the population ( mostly the poor ones) will go within 3 years. No offense.

It would hit the rich too because they are around the poor people. I'll never forget my maid when we were there using the restroom outside. I tried to get her to go in the house with the rest of us and she thought I was trying to have sex with her

Sixty Days To Beat Ebola, United Nations Warns

If the deadly outbreak cannot be reined in by Christmas then the UN says there is no plan in place and it could be overwhelmed.

http://news.sky.com/story/1352857/sixty-days-to-beat-ebola-united-nations-warns