Ebola case confirmed on US soil (Now UK - p4).
Comments
-
Man of many talents ?RedChaser said:
Cycling or maybe Golf? :-)Fanny Fanackapan said:
No guesses as to what would be your specialist subject on Mastermind, Leroy.Leroy Ambrose said:
It's likely that Ebola had been around for much longer than the outbreak which alerted the scientists who 'discovered' it. It's particularly virulent, and would probably have killed almost everyone who contracted it back when it was confined to small, isolated villages. No exaggeration to say that it's possible it even pre-dates humanityShootersHillGuru said:cafcfan said:
I think that was when it was first identified as a separate virus. No doubt it had quietly been killing Africans long before that.ShootersHillGuru said:
Ebola didn't emerge until 1976.A-R-T-H-U-R said:
It does transfer through the air already, and has done since the 1930's, but mutates into an influenzaSuedeAdidas said:Viruses are clever little buggers - but you could argue that Ebola is not a very efficient one.
It has a very high mortality rate and it kills people before they have a chance to pass it on to a great number of other people.
If it did become airborne it would probably also mutate to either become less deady or at least not kill the hosts so quickly.
Scary stuff nonetheless.
Anyway, regarding the airport screening programmes. Tropical virus guy on BBC this morining said they were pointless.
In the States, they've had 5 kids die with a virus called EV-D68 which has affected people in 43 states this year, West Nile Fever has killed 1100 people and has been seen in every state except Maine and god knows what else there is.
Of course, they'd prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths if they screened Americans for overeating.
Not as Ebola it wasn't.
0 -
That's one way of putting it, 'He's Misstra kn......................only joking Leroy, very informative and interesting input to the thread. :-)Fanny Fanackapan said:
Man of many talents ?RedChaser said:
Cycling or maybe Golf? :-)Fanny Fanackapan said:
No guesses as to what would be your specialist subject on Mastermind, Leroy.Leroy Ambrose said:
It's likely that Ebola had been around for much longer than the outbreak which alerted the scientists who 'discovered' it. It's particularly virulent, and would probably have killed almost everyone who contracted it back when it was confined to small, isolated villages. No exaggeration to say that it's possible it even pre-dates humanityShootersHillGuru said:cafcfan said:
I think that was when it was first identified as a separate virus. No doubt it had quietly been killing Africans long before that.ShootersHillGuru said:
Ebola didn't emerge until 1976.A-R-T-H-U-R said:
It does transfer through the air already, and has done since the 1930's, but mutates into an influenzaSuedeAdidas said:Viruses are clever little buggers - but you could argue that Ebola is not a very efficient one.
It has a very high mortality rate and it kills people before they have a chance to pass it on to a great number of other people.
If it did become airborne it would probably also mutate to either become less deady or at least not kill the hosts so quickly.
Scary stuff nonetheless.
Anyway, regarding the airport screening programmes. Tropical virus guy on BBC this morining said they were pointless.
In the States, they've had 5 kids die with a virus called EV-D68 which has affected people in 43 states this year, West Nile Fever has killed 1100 people and has been seen in every state except Maine and god knows what else there is.
Of course, they'd prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths if they screened Americans for overeating.
Not as Ebola it wasn't.0 -
LOL - yeah. That's true. Though it is a bit pedantic - it's not like smallpox didn't kill millions before it was called 'smallpox'ShootersHillGuru said:
I'm being pedantic but Ebola was named after the Ebola River in Congo when it was first recognised as a disease in 1976. I have little doubt that the actual virus was around for some time before but whatever it was it wasn't Ebola.Leroy Ambrose said:
It's likely that Ebola had been around for much longer than the outbreak which alerted the scientists who 'discovered' it. It's particularly virulent, and would probably have killed almost everyone who contracted it back when it was confined to small, isolated villages. No exaggeration to say that it's possible it even pre-dates humanityShootersHillGuru said:cafcfan said:
I think that was when it was first identified as a separate virus. No doubt it had quietly been killing Africans long before that.ShootersHillGuru said:
Ebola didn't emerge until 1976.A-R-T-H-U-R said:
It does transfer through the air already, and has done since the 1930's, but mutates into an influenzaSuedeAdidas said:Viruses are clever little buggers - but you could argue that Ebola is not a very efficient one.
It has a very high mortality rate and it kills people before they have a chance to pass it on to a great number of other people.
If it did become airborne it would probably also mutate to either become less deady or at least not kill the hosts so quickly.
Scary stuff nonetheless.
Anyway, regarding the airport screening programmes. Tropical virus guy on BBC this morining said they were pointless.
In the States, they've had 5 kids die with a virus called EV-D68 which has affected people in 43 states this year, West Nile Fever has killed 1100 people and has been seen in every state except Maine and god knows what else there is.
Of course, they'd prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths if they screened Americans for overeating.
Not as Ebola it wasn't.
0 -
Whatever virus killed people before it was called smallpox it wasn't smallpox ;0)Leroy Ambrose said:
LOL - yeah. That's true. Though it is a bit pedantic - it's not like smallpox didn't kill millions before it was called 'smallpox'ShootersHillGuru said:
I'm being pedantic but Ebola was named after the Ebola River in Congo when it was first recognised as a disease in 1976. I have little doubt that the actual virus was around for some time before but whatever it was it wasn't Ebola.Leroy Ambrose said:
It's likely that Ebola had been around for much longer than the outbreak which alerted the scientists who 'discovered' it. It's particularly virulent, and would probably have killed almost everyone who contracted it back when it was confined to small, isolated villages. No exaggeration to say that it's possible it even pre-dates humanityShootersHillGuru said:cafcfan said:
I think that was when it was first identified as a separate virus. No doubt it had quietly been killing Africans long before that.ShootersHillGuru said:
Ebola didn't emerge until 1976.A-R-T-H-U-R said:
It does transfer through the air already, and has done since the 1930's, but mutates into an influenzaSuedeAdidas said:Viruses are clever little buggers - but you could argue that Ebola is not a very efficient one.
It has a very high mortality rate and it kills people before they have a chance to pass it on to a great number of other people.
If it did become airborne it would probably also mutate to either become less deady or at least not kill the hosts so quickly.
Scary stuff nonetheless.
Anyway, regarding the airport screening programmes. Tropical virus guy on BBC this morining said they were pointless.
In the States, they've had 5 kids die with a virus called EV-D68 which has affected people in 43 states this year, West Nile Fever has killed 1100 people and has been seen in every state except Maine and god knows what else there is.
Of course, they'd prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths if they screened Americans for overeating.
Not as Ebola it wasn't.
I'll get me coat.
0 -
To cheer us all up .. If you're eligible, make sure you get that jab !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-295412350 -
Another case in usa - another nurse working on the chap that died there. The day before being diagnosed she was on a plane. So a confined space with recirculating aircon.....0
-
ouch .. stuff of nightmaresSwisdom said:Another case in usa - another nurse working on the chap that died there. The day before being diagnosed she was on a plane. So a confined space with recirculating aircon.....
0 -
Not an airborne virus (well I guess it was in one sense). Infection requires direct contact with bodily fluids.Swisdom said:Another case in usa - another nurse working on the chap that died there. The day before being diagnosed she was on a plane. So a confined space with recirculating aircon.....
0 -
Claims it can survive for a short space of time on surfaces si more airborne than was originally thoughtIAgree said:
Not an airborne virus (well I guess it was in one sense). Infection requires direct contact with bodily fluids.Swisdom said:Another case in usa - another nurse working on the chap that died there. The day before being diagnosed she was on a plane. So a confined space with recirculating aircon.....
0 -
Think this is going to get a lot lot worse. There is nothing in place anywhere that's fit for purpose to contain this.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Is this panic thread going to be bumped every time a new case is diagnosed?I'm being serious when I say that there are some people with major health anxiety issues on this board. What were you like when Swine Flu was all the rage? It is this kind of worry that spreads the mass panic that you see in the press that can end up doing more harm than good.
0 -
I suspect that comparing Swine Flu to Ebola Infection is akin to comparing chickenpox to smallpox .. I agree that panic will do no good; BUT: watchfulness, realistic awareness and some preparation for the worst should be the orders of the day. Ebola IS a proven killer that is VERY difficult, as well as expensive and of grave danger to medical staff, to cure and controlDamoNorthStand said:Is this panic thread going to be bumped every time a new case is diagnosed?I'm being serious when I say that there are some people with major health anxiety issues on this board. What were you like when Swine Flu was all the rage? It is this kind of worry that spreads the mass panic that you see in the press that can end up doing more harm than good.
0 -
Maybe there is genuine cause for concern here though. There is still a lot to learn about ebola and we are seeing that it I spreading. The fatality rate is higher than the 50% previously claimed because there are deaths not even logged as infection.DamoNorthStand said:Is this panic thread going to be bumped every time a new case is diagnosed?I'm being serious when I say that there are some people with major health anxiety issues on this board. What were you like when Swine Flu was all the rage? It is this kind of worry that spreads the mass panic that you see in the press that can end up doing more harm than good.
Its a fascinating situation actually - but one that I'm not hysterical about. I just think we in the western world are a little too blasé about it thinking we can contain it0 -
Apologies Damo. Not trying to spread mass hysteria at all. At least you might well be safe with your head firmly stuck in the sand. People will die in every civilised country in the world including here is my opinion. Will we contain it ? Certainly but only after we wake up to the reality. That's taken a while though.0
-
I am more concerned about cancer which kills more in a day than Ebola will kill throughout this whole process. Yet we don't see the same kind of panic.ShootersHillGuru said:Apologies Damo. Not trying to spread mass hysteria at all. At least you might well be safe with your head firmly stuck in the sand. People will die in every civilised country in the world including here is my opinion. Will we contain it ? Certainly but only after we wake up to the reality. That's taken a while though.
I would suggest that pretty much everyone on this board has lost someone to cancer (a friend or loved one) and that to me deserves more attention than something that has (so far) killed a minute element of the population of west Africa and one person in the USA.
Does it have to be taken seriously? Of course.
Do we need to be planning escape routes to the country as earlier in this thread?
In my opinion no.
You would stand more chance statistically of adding days to your lifespan by eating healthily, giving up smoking, and drinking in moderation.
2 -
All your points are valid.DamoNorthStand said:
I am more concerned about cancer which kills more in a day than Ebola will kill throughout this whole process. Yet we don't see the same kind of panic.ShootersHillGuru said:Apologies Damo. Not trying to spread mass hysteria at all. At least you might well be safe with your head firmly stuck in the sand. People will die in every civilised country in the world including here is my opinion. Will we contain it ? Certainly but only after we wake up to the reality. That's taken a while though.
I would suggest that pretty much everyone on this board has lost someone to cancer (a friend or loved one) and that to me deserves more attention than something that has (so far) killed a minute element of the population of west Africa and one person in the USA.
Does it have to be taken seriously? Of course.
Do we need to be planning escape routes to the country as earlier in this thread?
In my opinion no.
You would stand more chance statistically of adding days to your lifespan by eating healthily, giving up smoking, and drinking in moderation.
What I will say though is that the last really deadly viral pandemic of 96 years ago killed 50 million people.
Luckily Ebola is not airborne but it is very deadly and thus far in the west has been contracted by people who were wearing protective clothing and had medical training. The consequences of it getting into the general population isn't worth thinking about. Think that's why President Obama is starting to get very serious.
0 -
One other consideration is that healthcare, hygiene and hospitals are a million years away from where they were 96 years ago (assume you are referring to Spanish flu) which was airborne as well.ShootersHillGuru said:
All your points are valid.DamoNorthStand said:
I am more concerned about cancer which kills more in a day than Ebola will kill throughout this whole process. Yet we don't see the same kind of panic.ShootersHillGuru said:Apologies Damo. Not trying to spread mass hysteria at all. At least you might well be safe with your head firmly stuck in the sand. People will die in every civilised country in the world including here is my opinion. Will we contain it ? Certainly but only after we wake up to the reality. That's taken a while though.
I would suggest that pretty much everyone on this board has lost someone to cancer (a friend or loved one) and that to me deserves more attention than something that has (so far) killed a minute element of the population of west Africa and one person in the USA.
Does it have to be taken seriously? Of course.
Do we need to be planning escape routes to the country as earlier in this thread?
In my opinion no.
You would stand more chance statistically of adding days to your lifespan by eating healthily, giving up smoking, and drinking in moderation.
What I will say though is that the last really deadly viral pandemic of 96 years ago killed 50 million people.
Luckily Ebola is not airborne but it is very deadly and thus far in the west has been contracted by people who were wearing protective clothing and had medical training. The consequences of it getting into the general population isn't worth thinking about. Think that's why President Obama is starting to get very serious.0 -
Again you are correct. My point is that medically trained staff at hospitals who were well aware of the potential danger and wearing protective clothing have still contracted the disease.DamoNorthStand said:
One other consideration is that healthcare, hygiene and hospitals are a million years away from where they were 96 years ago (assume you are referring to Spanish flu) which was airborne as well.ShootersHillGuru said:
All your points are valid.DamoNorthStand said:
I am more concerned about cancer which kills more in a day than Ebola will kill throughout this whole process. Yet we don't see the same kind of panic.ShootersHillGuru said:Apologies Damo. Not trying to spread mass hysteria at all. At least you might well be safe with your head firmly stuck in the sand. People will die in every civilised country in the world including here is my opinion. Will we contain it ? Certainly but only after we wake up to the reality. That's taken a while though.
I would suggest that pretty much everyone on this board has lost someone to cancer (a friend or loved one) and that to me deserves more attention than something that has (so far) killed a minute element of the population of west Africa and one person in the USA.
Does it have to be taken seriously? Of course.
Do we need to be planning escape routes to the country as earlier in this thread?
In my opinion no.
You would stand more chance statistically of adding days to your lifespan by eating healthily, giving up smoking, and drinking in moderation.
What I will say though is that the last really deadly viral pandemic of 96 years ago killed 50 million people.
Luckily Ebola is not airborne but it is very deadly and thus far in the west has been contracted by people who were wearing protective clothing and had medical training. The consequences of it getting into the general population isn't worth thinking about. Think that's why President Obama is starting to get very serious.
An infected person who sneezes and leaves traces of that sneeze on their hands when they touch almost anything will deposit live virus. It's why the environs of the hospital in Texas are being disinfected. This virus does live outside the body for uncertain periods of time.
The west has not reacted quickly enough and now to quote the World Health Organisation " Ebola is running faster than us and we are losing the race"
The WHO's projections say that there will be between 5000 and 10,000 new cases a week within two months.
0 -
Wikipedia has a lot to answer for.....0
-
Probably does but not in my case. I studied viral infection as part of my masters.A-R-T-H-U-R said:Wikipedia has a lot to answer for.....
2 - Sponsored links:
-
BREAKING NEWS: 99.95% of the population of Sierra Leone don't have ebola0
-
^^^^ yet .. let's hope that it stays this way0
-
I'm not usually one to thrust this type of thing on people but just chucked a bit of pat this way http://www.msf.org.uk
Only because for me we have to help nip it in the bud over there0 -
First case confirmed in Scotland according to news at 10 on ITV0
-
Flew into London on the way to Glasgow, worrying times or not much bother?0
-
Ebola arrives in Glasgow
Transfer window hasn't even opened yet!0 -
Nicola Sturgeon sends Ebola nurse to London to ensure she receives the best possible care.
Can anyone think of a better example of the benefit of a United Kingdom that sticks together to share and concentrate resources to provide the absolute best facilities.0 -
Well it's certainly a good way to reduce the spending of the Scottish NHS and at the same time increase the spending of the English NHS.Dippenhall said:Nicola Sturgeon sends Ebola nurse to London to ensure she receives the best possible care.
Can anyone think of a better example of the benefit of a United Kingdom that sticks together to share and concentrate resources to provide the absolute best facilities.
(in case of any hysterical reactions to this post. I do of course wish the nurse in question a speedy recovery)0 -
i was at the Royal Free when the first case to be treated in the UK was brought in. On the Monday we got a pep talk and they went on and on and on about how we were at "no risk" in the end i said "yes we are, a week ago there was no ebola in this hospital---now there is so we are at a higher risk"-----much shuffling of papers and "The risk is very very small" ----------true but dont fecking say they is "no risk"----humans make errors----therefore there is always a risk.
Well of course there is no risk to the people of Scotland now.
PS i was gona bring up at the meeting in the Royal Free that numptys like me had "access all area" passes .2
