Is there no blood test that can determine the presence of the virus?
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.
They are trialling one now in Guinea, it is not known if it will be accurate for those who have just caught the disease until extensive trials have taken place.
In this case the lady was at the very beginning but it seems she followed protocol she did not turn up at an A&E she called the NHS who sent a specialist ambulance who transported her to an isolation ward without going through the A&E or other wards .
Ah, but flu is far, far more contagious, and therefore more of a danger. That's why it kills so many people every year and Ebola doesn't. Also, Ebola death rates are reported as high because most people are being treating by family in small villages with no drugs or medical supplies. In the UK, the disease mortality figure would be less than 30%..
Are you a doctor or a scientist? You arrived at that figure through Extensive research right? Because you wouldn't just pluck a figure out of the air would you?
Flu may be far more contagious but has a much lower mortality rate when infected. From what I have read, Ebola doesn't work the same was as the flu. With the flu virus, the immune system detects it and gets to work on it, but Ebola flies under the radar. By the time there is finally an immune response, the damage is already too severe.
Also note that Flu has a vaccine, ebola doesn't. What would you rather take your chances with, the Flu, or Ebola?
Are you a doctor or a scientist? You arrived at that figure through Extensive research right? Because you wouldn't just pluck a figure out of the air would you?
Flu may be far more contagious but has a much lower mortality rate when infected. From what I have read, Ebola doesn't work the same was as the flu. With the flu virus, the immune system detects it and gets to work on it, but Ebola flies under the radar. By the time there is finally an immune response, the damage is already too severe.
Also note that Flu has a vaccine, ebola doesn't. What would you rather take your chances with, the Flu, or Ebola?
The flu vaccine only deals with known strains of flu. If there is a sudden pandemic outbreak of a new strain of flu, then the existing vaccines will offer little protection.
Are you a doctor or a scientist? You arrived at that figure through Extensive research right? Because you wouldn't just pluck a figure out of the air would you?
Flu may be far more contagious but has a much lower mortality rate when infected. From what I have read, Ebola doesn't work the same was as the flu. With the flu virus, the immune system detects it and gets to work on it, but Ebola flies under the radar. By the time there is finally an immune response, the damage is already too severe.
What would you rather take your chances with, the Flu, or Ebola?
Whilst the 'sample size' is limited, a quick look at how patients treated for Ebola have done in the West does show a significantly lower mortality rate.
So far, 24 patients have been treated outside Africa.
5 have died, 16 have recovered and 3 are in treatment (including the latest patient)
That makes the current mortality rate of just under 21% compared to 60-70% in West Africa,
That is all we really have to go on, but just plain common sense will tell you that in a disease where the main cause of death is acute and exceptionally severe dehydration leading to organ failure, being able to treat patients in a clean environment with massive IV replenishment of fluids is going to have better outcomes than for those lying on a bed in a tent with some bottles of oral rehydration solution (which they may or may not be able to keep down.)
The flu vaccine only deals with known strains of flu. If there is a sudden pandemic outbreak of a new strain of flu, then the existing vaccines will offer little protection.
But the fact remains that there are flu vaccines, yet none for Ebola.
But the fact remains that there are flu vaccines, yet none for Ebola.
And the fact also remains that influenza is far, far more contagious. and deadly from a public health viewpoint because of the number of people it infects and kills - however horrible and frightening Ebola is.
And the fact also remains that influenza is far, far more contagious. and deadly from a public health viewpoint because of the number of people it infects and kills - however horrible and frightening Ebola is.
The doctor who spoke on Radio 2's news to state how poor the screening process they received when returning from treating Ebola victims doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, don't you think?
I'm sorry - but what has that got to do with anything?
Did this woman run around kissing people after becoming feverish? Did she run around kissing anyone?
Are people suggesting that this is what healthcare workers would do - deliberately kiss people even when they were feverish?
This just sounds like unnecessary scaremongering and demonisation of people who are a good deal braver than I am and who really don't deserve some of the negativity being thrown at them.
There have been several posts suggesting that she was hugging people and kissing children. I cannot find a single reference to this behaviour on any news site or on tv. However, if she was travelling back with 50 or so other colleagues, it would not be surprising if they did not hug each other as they said goodbye especially as there was absolutely no reason to believe any of them were infected. - seems a pretty normal thing to do.
And the fact also remains that influenza is far, far more contagious. and deadly from a public health viewpoint because of the number of people it infects and kills - however horrible and frightening Ebola is.
There have been several posts suggesting that she was hugging people and kissing children. I cannot find a single reference to this behaviour on any news site or on tv. However, if she was travelling back with 50 or so other colleagues, it would not be surprising if they did not hug each other as they said goodbye especially as there was absolutely no reason to believe any of them were infected. - seems a pretty normal thing to do.
Dr Deahl, 58, said: "I was sitting next to her on the plane when we flew back on Sunday night and she seemed fine. "On Sunday we flew into Casablanca and had a six hour stop-over in the airport lounge. Again there was lots of us hugging and chatting with each other.
A doctor who returned with the other healthcare workers described the screening process at the airport as "little more than cosmetic", his words, not mine.
Dr Martin Deahl is also quoted as saying "they ran out of testing kits and didn't seem to know what they were doing", so much for the great screening process so many on here have been banging on about.
A doctor who returned with the other healthcare workers described the screening process at the airport as "little more than cosmetic", his words, not mine.
Most security is theatre. The chances of someone developing symptoms mid flight are low and would also require the patient not to report themselves
As I said, it would not be surprising if they did all hug each other as they said goodbye, as there was no suggestion that any of them were infected.
however, the implication in the article does suggest how difficult it is to avoid contact with the general community in Sierra Leone. Perhaps there has to be even more stringent rules a to how they deal with the community
Most security is theatre. The chances of someone developing symptoms mid flight are low and would also require the patient not to report themselves
And the chances of an experienced healthcare worker, specifically trained in the treatment of Ebola victims and kitted out with a hazchem suit no doubt has a low chance of infection, but guess what?
Again, no idea how accurate are these claims, but we cannot just keep saying that ebola is only transferred from person to person through direct contact of fluids and be so blase about it. If a Flu Virus can carry through air why can ebola not? Even if it cannot travel as far through the air, it's still enough if you are in close proximity of the infected person and not wearing any protective suits.
Food for thought anyways.
Totally agree. The insistence that such an intimate level of bodily fluid contact is required for transmission just doesn't make sense to me.
There is moisture from your saliva in your exhaled air, and this surely remains airborne albeit briefly and locally but its there.
THey were right to send her to London. We're trying to rebuild Scotland just now. Let Borris or whoever is in charge down there deal with it.
What happened to Scotland that theyre rebuilding it?
Im having new windows fitted but apart that Ive not noticed any rebuilding
Anyway, Im quite disappointed that shes not being treated in Glasgow as we had the unit set up and the staff trained, but whatevers best for her
Totally agree. The insistence that such an intimate level of bodily fluid contact is required for transmission just doesn't make sense to me.
There is moisture from your saliva in your exhaled air, and this surely remains airborne albeit briefly and locally but its there.
Exactly, I mean how intimate did this nurse get with the local community in Sierra Leone? Also previous returning nurses were told not to use public transport for at least 21 days, but no one gave such instructions to those returning over Christmas.
And the chances of an experienced healthcare worker, specifically trained in the treatment of Ebola victims and kitted out with a hazchem suit no doubt has a low chance of infection, but guess what?
Getting infected and showing symptoms on a flight are linked - so you start with a rare event then add another rare event to it and from there you throw the baby out with the bathwater and panic.
Getting infected and showing symptoms on a flight are linked - so you start with a rare event then add another rare event to it and from there you throw the baby out with the bathwater and panic.
It pays to be really careful when dealing such a dangerous virus, someone has clearly been slapdash somewhere and whilst I don't think for one moment any of us on this forum are in imminent danger of getting Ebola, the fact is there are nurses and doctors currently having to deal with a case of Ebola because someone has been careless somewhere along the line, why all the mention of 'panic', is anyone planning on going to the chemist to stock up on lemsip and disposable masks because of this incident? No, didn't think so.
Comments
They are trialling one now in Guinea, it is not known if it will be accurate for those who have just caught the disease until extensive trials have taken place.
In this case the lady was at the very beginning but it seems she followed protocol she did not turn up at an A&E she called the NHS who sent a specialist ambulance who transported her to an isolation ward without going through the A&E or other wards .
Are you a doctor or a scientist? You arrived at that figure through Extensive research right? Because you wouldn't just pluck a figure out of the air would you?
Flu may be far more contagious but has a much lower mortality rate when infected. From what I have read, Ebola doesn't work the same was as the flu. With the flu virus, the immune system detects it and gets to work on it, but Ebola flies under the radar. By the time there is finally an immune response, the damage is already too severe.
Also note that Flu has a vaccine, ebola doesn't. What would you rather take your chances with, the Flu, or Ebola?
The flu vaccine only deals with known strains of flu. If there is a sudden pandemic outbreak of a new strain of flu, then the existing vaccines will offer little protection.
Whilst the 'sample size' is limited, a quick look at how patients treated for Ebola have done in the West does show a significantly lower mortality rate.
So far, 24 patients have been treated outside Africa.
5 have died, 16 have recovered and 3 are in treatment (including the latest patient)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/31/world/africa/ebola-virus-outbreak-qa.html
That makes the current mortality rate of just under 21% compared to 60-70% in West Africa,
That is all we really have to go on, but just plain common sense will tell you that in a disease where the main cause of death is acute and exceptionally severe dehydration leading to organ failure, being able to treat patients in a clean environment with massive IV replenishment of fluids is going to have better outcomes than for those lying on a bed in a tent with some bottles of oral rehydration solution (which they may or may not be able to keep down.)
But the fact remains that there are flu vaccines, yet none for Ebola.
And the fact also remains that influenza is far, far more contagious. and deadly from a public health viewpoint because of the number of people it infects and kills - however horrible and frightening Ebola is.
Actually both beds have been used now, i believe William Pooley used the other one.
The doctor who spoke on Radio 2's news to state how poor the screening process they received when returning from treating Ebola victims doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, don't you think?
There have been several posts suggesting that she was hugging people and kissing children. I cannot find a single reference to this behaviour on any news site or on tv. However, if she was travelling back with 50 or so other colleagues, it would not be surprising if they did not hug each other as they said goodbye especially as there was absolutely no reason to believe any of them were infected. - seems a pretty normal thing to do.
so you would rather catch Ebola than the flu?
Most security is theatre. The chances of someone developing symptoms mid flight are low and would also require the patient not to report themselves
Thank you for the link.
As I said, it would not be surprising if they did all hug each other as they said goodbye, as there was no suggestion that any of them were infected.
however, the implication in the article does suggest how difficult it is to avoid contact with the general community in Sierra Leone. Perhaps there has to be even more stringent rules a to how they deal with the community
i don't, can't stand the vile creature
that is asking lot from her, don't think she has a brain to engage, do trolls who live under bridges have brains
And the chances of an experienced healthcare worker, specifically trained in the treatment of Ebola victims and kitted out with a hazchem suit no doubt has a low chance of infection, but guess what?
Happy to help
Best wishes, England
Totally agree. The insistence that such an intimate level of bodily fluid contact is required for transmission just doesn't make sense to me.
There is moisture from your saliva in your exhaled air, and this surely remains airborne albeit briefly and locally but its there.
What happened to Scotland that theyre rebuilding it?
Im having new windows fitted but apart that Ive not noticed any rebuilding
Anyway, Im quite disappointed that shes not being treated in Glasgow as we had the unit set up and the staff trained, but whatevers best for her
Exactly, I mean how intimate did this nurse get with the local community in Sierra Leone? Also previous returning nurses were told not to use public transport for at least 21 days, but no one gave such instructions to those returning over Christmas.
It pays to be really careful when dealing such a dangerous virus, someone has clearly been slapdash somewhere and whilst I don't think for one moment any of us on this forum are in imminent danger of getting Ebola, the fact is there are nurses and doctors currently having to deal with a case of Ebola because someone has been careless somewhere along the line, why all the mention of 'panic', is anyone planning on going to the chemist to stock up on lemsip and disposable masks because of this incident? No, didn't think so.