People have every right to be concerned. Even though it's unlikely she will pass the disease on, it's still a possibility
The way some on here are dismissing it, you'd think Ebola was just some minor ailment, with a few isolated cases, instead of a deadly disease spreading like wildfire across parts of Africa
The woman was sick enough to require hospital treatment, but at what point of feeling unwell does she become a 'live' carrier? There could have been a window where she was capable of passing it on, and not yet in hospital
I agree with you. I posted earlier that there is now three cases being investigated and yet nobody seems concerned about that. I'm glad that our medical facilities seem more than able to contain and deal with this and reassure us that the risks of it spreading is low, however I don't feel reassured by the dangerous mistakes being made where full precautions are not being adhered to whilst treating people with full blown Ebola.
People have every right to be concerned. Even though it's unlikely she will pass the disease on, it's still a possibility
The way some on here are dismissing it, you'd think Ebola was just some minor ailment, with a few isolated cases, instead of a deadly disease spreading like wildfire across parts of Africa
The woman was sick enough to require hospital treatment, but at what point of feeling unwell does she become a 'live' carrier? There could have been a window where she was capable of passing it on, and not yet in hospital
There are a few important differences. In West Africa, patients are largely being treated by family members, who are mopping up the blood, sick and vomit without any protective gear.
Those westerners who have treated patients and then return home are given full briefing on what to do should any symptoms start to become apparent, so that health authorities can treat them with appropriate isolation and protection. A patient is a "live" carrier if they are a) physically ill and b) emit bodily fluids that another person could get inside their body.
Is there no blood test that can determine the presence of the virus?
Yes, but it won't return a positive identification until the virus has replicated by a significant number of times inside the host. At which point the host is already ill.
I agree with you. I posted earlier that there is now three cases being investigated and yet nobody seems concerned about that. I'm glad that our medical facilities seem more than able to contain and deal with this and reassure us that the risks of it spreading is low, however I don't feel reassured by the dangerous mistakes being made where full precautions are not being adhered to whilst treating people with full blown Ebola.
There's no concern because they did not catch it from each other and as long as they are quarantined there is nothing to be worried about.
I wonder how much the authorities are spending right now as they urgently seek all passengers who traveled on both aircraft used by the infected nurse? Not to mention now having to spend NHS resources testing said passengers once traced!
BIB - they do not have to test them - which again illustrates the immense lack of understanding being displayed by many. It isn't as if there is no information available either - there are FAQs on the BBC website, on NHS Choices, on the Public Health England and the WHO website.
What possible use would testing them at this point be? Even if they had picked up the virus (very, very unlikely) it would not have replicated enough to reach concentrations which would be picked up by testing.
Public Health will be be telling people who were on the planes that it is highly unlikely they have contracted anything, but that they should contact authorities if they develop a fever in the next three weeks.
71 passengers who were on the flight Glasgow are now being sought. What about all those on the flight from Africa.
Apparently she didn't follow all strict procedures and admits to having hugged people and children.
Why is it that in any event like this, no matter how simply the facts are explained, there are always people who seem almost wilfully determined to panic and over - react?
Treating Ebola: inside the Royal Free hospital’s high-level isolation unit This is the state-of-the-art polythene “patient isolator” unit at the Royal Free hospital where the nurse who has contracted Ebola will be treated.
There, she will remain isolated from staff in the hi-tech tent, which comes with in-built hats, sleeves and gloves to allow clinical care while protecting staff.
She will only be able to communicate with family and friends by a telephone on a wall in the corridor outside.
A patient is a "live" carrier if they are a) physically ill and b) emit bodily fluids that another person could get inside their body.
I presume she was feeling physically ill, prior to going to the hospital
Unless she was coincidently passing a hospital and felt ill that split-second, there would be a 'window of opportunity' for the disease to be passed on
Also, IIRC she was hospitalised early in the morning, in which case the symptoms could have started whilst she slept, meaning she could have been 'further on' with the disease, than say someone who started to feel a bit rough during the middle of the day
As I say, unlikely something will come of it, but I wouldn't be as dismissive as some on here have been
no one is panicking..but why if its so serious that isolation units are neccesary costing millions of pounds is there no period of quarantine for people who go there to work with ebola victims before they return to the uk.. it seems careless
Why is it that in any event like this, no matter how simply the facts are explained, there are always people who seem almost wilfully determined to panic and over - react?
I think we need more people in NBC suits looking at clipboards and men in camo gear striding purposefully away from helicopters. Otherwise it just looks like they don't know what they're doing.
Why is it that in any event like this, no matter how simply the facts are explained, there are always people who seem almost wilfully determined to panic and over - react?
Having read most of this thread, I don't think I've noticed anyone panicking or overreacting. Concerned perhaps, but then if it was no big deal, then why would it be breaking news in the first place?
However, that said, my thanks to those here on the thread with more informative details about it and educating us on the whole Ebola process and how it spreads.
People have every right to be concerned. Even though it's unlikely she will pass the disease on, it's still a possibility
The way some on here are dismissing it, you'd think Ebola was just some minor ailment, with a few isolated cases, instead of a deadly disease spreading like wildfire across parts of Africa
The woman was sick enough to require hospital treatment, but at what point of feeling unwell does she become a 'live' carrier? There could have been a window where she was capable of passing it on, and not yet in hospital
She had a fever - in most cases this would not be 'sick enough to require hospital treatment'. The reason she went to hospital is because this is an early warning sign for Ebola and she needed to be tested, which she was.
Since she went to hospital as soon as she detected the fever, and she will not be contagious until she starts shedding infected bodily fluids, when was this window where she was capable of transmitting the virus?
She was well enough to walk into the mobile isolation unit according to the BBC.
Having read most of this thread, I don't think I've noticed anyone panicking or overreacting. Concerned perhaps, but then if it was no big deal, then why would it be breaking news in the first place?
However, that said, my thanks to those here on the thread with more informative details about it and educating us on the whole Ebola process and how it spreads.
I think some of the 'not to worry' posters are confusing showing minor concern over one of the world's most deadly diseases coming here, with taping plastic sheeting over our windows, and buying clockwork radios
I think some of the 'not to worry' posters are confusing showing minor concern over one of the world's most deadly diseases coming here, with taping plastic sheeting over our windows, and buying clockwork radios
One of the worlds most deadly diseases that isn't transmitted through the air therefore not contagious to people nearby.
She had a fever - in most cases this would not be 'sick enough to require hospital treatment'. The reason she went to hospital is because this is an early warning sign for Ebola and she needed to be tested, which she was.
Since she went to hospital as soon as she detected the fever, and she will not be contagious until she starts shedding infected bodily fluids, when was this window where she was capable of transmitting the virus?
She was well enough to walk into the mobile isolation unit according to the BBC.
You may be right, but can we be sure it's that an exact science of predicting?
Would you be happy with a returning health worker from an Ebola zone, with a slight fever, picking up and kissing a child you knew?
People have every right to be concerned. Even though it's unlikely she will pass the disease on, it's still a possibility
The way some on here are dismissing it, you'd think Ebola was just some minor ailment, with a few isolated cases, instead of a deadly disease spreading like wildfire across parts of Africa
The woman was sick enough to require hospital treatment, but at what point of feeling unwell does she become a 'live' carrier? There could have been a window where she was capable of passing it on, and not yet in hospital
Just to put this into perspective, these are the populations of some ebola-affected west Africa countries:
Guinea 11,750,000
Liberia 4,292,000
Sierra Leone 6,092,000
And here are the total number of laboratory-confirmed cases of ebola:
Guinea 2,342
Liberia 3,085
Sierra Leone 7,106
And here are the number of deaths in those countries from ebola:
Guinea 1,654
Liberia 3,384
Sierra Leone 2,655
And here's the maths:
% of affected people who die from ebola - 61%
% of the population of the three countries who have ebola - 0.057%
So while those who contract ebola have a higher chance of dying than living, there's very little chance of contracting it in the first place, so imagine what the likelihood is of contracting ebola in a country which has fewer than 5 reported cases of it!!
· population of the UK = 64.1million
· number of ebola cases = ~5
· % of population with ebola = 0.00001%
· % of population with ebola = zero
Compare that to flying:
· Number of people worldwide who flew in 2009 = 2.5billion (http://bit.ly/fQWCgz)
· Number of deaths from flying per year = 676 (average over 10 years)
· % of flight passengers who died = 0.000027%
So less chance of dying from flying than from ebola in west Africa.
Compare to driving:
· Number of vehicles in the UK = 35 million
· Number of vehicle related deaths = 1,713
· % of people who die from a vehicle related accident = 0.005%
So less chance of dying from flying than from ebola in west Africa.
So in reality, if you were heading to Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea, you've more chance of dying from the journey to the airport and from the flight itself than you have from ebola.
And the chance of dying from ebola if you stay put in the UK - zero.
Comments
I saw a program where they used such in order to ascertain when a patient became clear of ebola, so I think there must be.
I don't think it's 'beyond reason', to be very careful coming back, perhaps seated in a particular area, and tested on landing.
The 'screening' people seem to be talking about on the thread is obviously a crude tool and not much use for these circumstances.
Bless. She just tries a little *too* hard, doesn't she?
Sure does. She's no Jeremy Clarkson.
I agree with you. I posted earlier that there is now three cases being investigated and yet nobody seems concerned about that. I'm glad that our medical facilities seem more than able to contain and deal with this and reassure us that the risks of it spreading is low, however I don't feel reassured by the dangerous mistakes being made where full precautions are not being adhered to whilst treating people with full blown Ebola.
There are a few important differences. In West Africa, patients are largely being treated by family members, who are mopping up the blood, sick and vomit without any protective gear.
Those westerners who have treated patients and then return home are given full briefing on what to do should any symptoms start to become apparent, so that health authorities can treat them with appropriate isolation and protection. A patient is a "live" carrier if they are a) physically ill and b) emit bodily fluids that another person could get inside their body.
She needs to engage brain before mouth. I will not advocate coerced censorship but she really needs to practice a little bit of self-censorship.
Yes, but it won't return a positive identification until the virus has replicated by a significant number of times inside the host. At which point the host is already ill.
BIB - they do not have to test them - which again illustrates the immense lack of understanding being displayed by many. It isn't as if there is no information available either - there are FAQs on the BBC website, on NHS Choices, on the Public Health England and the WHO website.
What possible use would testing them at this point be? Even if they had picked up the virus (very, very unlikely) it would not have replicated enough to reach concentrations which would be picked up by testing.
Public Health will be be telling people who were on the planes that it is highly unlikely they have contracted anything, but that they should contact authorities if they develop a fever in the next three weeks.
She is an insulting inflammatory disgrace of a woman. Why anyone gives her airtime, beats me.
Do you have a reputable link for that?
This is the state-of-the-art polythene “patient isolator” unit at the Royal Free hospital where the nurse who has contracted Ebola will be treated.
There, she will remain isolated from staff in the hi-tech tent, which comes with in-built hats, sleeves and gloves to allow clinical care while protecting staff.
She will only be able to communicate with family and friends by a telephone on a wall in the corridor outside.
Situated on the top floor of the Royal Free and commanding magnificent views of Hampstead Heath, the “high-level isolation unit” (HLIU) was where British nurse Will Pooley was treated when he was evacuated from Sierra Leone with Ebola in August.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/treating-ebola-inside-royal-free-hospital-isolation-unit?CMP=fb_gu
Unless she was coincidently passing a hospital and felt ill that split-second, there would be a 'window of opportunity' for the disease to be passed on
Also, IIRC she was hospitalised early in the morning, in which case the symptoms could have started whilst she slept, meaning she could have been 'further on' with the disease, than say someone who started to feel a bit rough during the middle of the day
As I say, unlikely something will come of it, but I wouldn't be as dismissive as some on here have been
I think we need more people in NBC suits looking at clipboards and men in camo gear striding purposefully away from helicopters. Otherwise it just looks like they don't know what they're doing.
Having read most of this thread, I don't think I've noticed anyone panicking or overreacting. Concerned perhaps, but then if it was no big deal, then why would it be breaking news in the first place?
However, that said, my thanks to those here on the thread with more informative details about it and educating us on the whole Ebola process and how it spreads.
She had a fever - in most cases this would not be 'sick enough to require hospital treatment'. The reason she went to hospital is because this is an early warning sign for Ebola and she needed to be tested, which she was.
Since she went to hospital as soon as she detected the fever, and she will not be contagious until she starts shedding infected bodily fluids, when was this window where she was capable of transmitting the virus?
She was well enough to walk into the mobile isolation unit according to the BBC.
One of the worlds most deadly diseases that isn't transmitted through the air therefore not contagious to people nearby.
Would you be happy with a returning health worker from an Ebola zone, with a slight fever, picking up and kissing a child you knew?
Because I wouldn't
Are you the type of person who would shun someone who had AIDS?
Just to put this into perspective, these are the populations of some ebola-affected west Africa countries:
Guinea 11,750,000
Liberia 4,292,000
Sierra Leone 6,092,000
And here are the total number of laboratory-confirmed cases of ebola:
Guinea 2,342
Liberia 3,085
Sierra Leone 7,106
And here are the number of deaths in those countries from ebola:
Guinea 1,654
Liberia 3,384
Sierra Leone 2,655
And here's the maths:
% of affected people who die from ebola - 61%
% of the population of the three countries who have ebola - 0.057%
So while those who contract ebola have a higher chance of dying than living, there's very little chance of contracting it in the first place, so imagine what the likelihood is of contracting ebola in a country which has fewer than 5 reported cases of it!!
· population of the UK = 64.1million
· number of ebola cases = ~5
· % of population with ebola = 0.00001%
· % of population with ebola = zero
Compare that to flying:
· Number of people worldwide who flew in 2009 = 2.5billion (http://bit.ly/fQWCgz)
· Number of deaths from flying per year = 676 (average over 10 years)
· % of flight passengers who died = 0.000027%
So less chance of dying from flying than from ebola in west Africa.
Compare to driving:
· Number of vehicles in the UK = 35 million
· Number of vehicle related deaths = 1,713
· % of people who die from a vehicle related accident = 0.005%
So less chance of dying from flying than from ebola in west Africa.
So in reality, if you were heading to Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea, you've more chance of dying from the journey to the airport and from the flight itself than you have from ebola.
And the chance of dying from ebola if you stay put in the UK - zero.
Sources:
Ebola cases
Number of vehicles
UK road accident fatalities
Sorry but it is all well and good people going to help those with Ebola, but they are really selfish to risk bringing the disease back into Britain.
If she decides to return there after being treated then she should be made to stay there until it is proven she has not caught it again.