Ebola confirmed in Glasgow, via Heathrow, Casablanca and Sierra leone

[rik_uk3]

Ebola is very infectious, but not very contagious, in fact if you have yet to show symptoms, you won't be infecting anyone.

Comparisons with the black death are unfounded.

I'd be more concerned about drug resistant TB than I would be about Ebola.

I hope the infected worker gets through this.

Well said. Ebola is being talked about on all sorts of forums, some posters on 'prepping' forums are in full blown panic mode, talking about Hazmat suits etc; perhaps if they looked for more factual information on this nasty little bug they'd calm down and not come across as ill-informed numpties

As a retired nurse I would have thought voluntary quarantine should be standard procedure.

 

[redandshane]

There is a lot of talk about this but what I find extraordinary is that when we do identify a case we have a policy in The UK to move that person to the far end of the country and has been said right into the heart of one of the most densely populated areas ;It is counter intuitive to say the least.

 

[Trencakey]

Someone being tested at Treliske Hospital down here in Cornwall.
http://news.sky.com/story/1399599/patient-assessed-for-ebola-symptoms-in-truro

 

[Robbi]

There was some one tested here in Belfast not that long ago, fortunately for all involved it came up negative.

 

[mountainm]

There is a lot of talk about this but what I find extraordinary is that when we do identify a case we have a policy in The UK to move that person to the far end of the country and has been said right into the heart of one of the most densely populated areas ;It is counter intuitive to say the least.

They're being moved to the place best equipped to deal with the virus. The virus is very difficult to catch and spreads easiest in areas with poor health infrastructure. So we move the patient to an area with a very good health infrastructure.

Again look at the infection map for Africa. Ebola is only a problem for poor ill equipped nations. One of which was recovering from a brutal civil war and had experienced a near 100% brain drain.

 

[mountainm]

Great, Just Great. If this worker was a Zombie you would shoot em. in fact, If someone said they were going away to work with zombies you would say... good, dont come back.

Amazing how quickly fear breeds prejudice.

 

[TallMikeM]

when I saw this I was all set to bug out to the hills, when I remembered I was already there. More practical, but nowhere near as dramatic as fleeing a city in chaos.

 

[andybysea]

Yes i admire those who go out there to help others,but look at it another way, coming back without imposed quarantine puts other peoples lives at risk, everyone on that plane and everyone who has come into contact with that person since they returned does have a small chance of contracting the virus, the stress for them must be horrendous, as it will be for the health workers now caring for the sick person n question, surely qaurantine isnt to much to ask for.

 

[redandshane]

They're being moved to the place best equipped to deal with the virus. The virus is very difficult to catch and spreads easiest in areas with poor health infrastructure. So we move the patient to an area with a very good health infrastructure.

Again look at the infection map for Africa. Ebola is only a problem for poor ill equipped nations. One of which was recovering from a brutal civil war and had experienced a near 100% brain drain.

LOL I know We said No in the referendum but I think you will find Scottish health care is of an equal if not better standard than English health care .

 

[mountainm]

LOL I know We said No in the referendum but I think you will find Scottish health care is of an equal if not better standard than English health care .

Specifically for the care of Ebola patients...

 

[rik_uk3]

There is a lot of talk about this but what I find extraordinary is that when we do identify a case we have a policy in The UK to move that person to the far end of the country and has been said right into the heart of one of the most densely populated areas ;It is counter intuitive to say the least.

If you've read all the posts surely you've grasped that Ebola is not easy to catch, nobody is at risk in the transfer; its not counter intuitive by anymeans, its common sense to use the best facilities you have.

 

[Jonbodthethird]

Despite the strident protests of a nurse in America I do not see why a period of quarantine is unreasonable for returning health workers.

Agreed! Tbh I think what this worker is very inconsiderate and slightly contradictory to go there in the first place. To bring it here and upset quite a few peoples lives is unreasonable. Fair play to helping people but to bring it here is not fair. They should quarantine people really then we know that the rest of the population is safe. It's only a matter of time the more aid workers/people returning from infected areas the more of a potential threat it becomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mountainm]

Agreed! Tbh I think what this worker is very inconsiderate and slightly contradictory to go there in the first place. To bring it here and upset quite a few peoples lives is unreasonable.

read this back. Read it back again. I really can't believe this had even been posted.

The risk to us is miniscule. Those people need our help. These doctors and nurses are heroes and deserve nothing but our respect. And yet they get treated like pariahs by people armed with nothing but ignorance and fear.

 

[boatman]

Pariahs they are not! This is eerily familiar to the early days of AIDS when avoiding stigma seemed more important than preventing the spread of the disease.

 

[Andy BB]

Some contradictory views here! From those who think that all volunteers are infallible gods whom we must bow down to and worship for their selflessness, and to criticise them in any way is equivalent to supporting genocide for all babies and vivisection for cute kittens and puppies, to those who think that extermination of all possible carriers is essential (I admit I may have exaggerated a little for effect here )

First of all. let us all give thanks that this is not an airborne virus, so less chance of catching it then. However, neither is AIDS..... And, unlike AIDs - which appears to be amost moving into a "manageable disease" category (at least in the West), Ebola infection means you are 70-90% certain to die within a week or two of displaying symptoms.

Secondly, for those who say there is negligible risk of catching this, then how come aid workers, wearing full protective clothing and very knowledgeable about the specific risks, still get it? Not exactly negligible risk, then....

From what I've read, you can become infected only from a patient who is displaying symptoms. And symptoms will display within 21 days. So a minimum 21 day COMPULSORY quarantine would make sense.

 

[TallMikeM]

ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids, unless you are engaged in activities that are likely to mean you come into contact with infected bodily fluids, then the chances of you catching it are negligible. The cases of care givers catching it seem to be from failures in procedure, either through inadequate PPE (as I believe was the case with the Spanish nurse, the hospital (her boss) tried to shift the blame onto her, but IIRC the evidence clearly indicated that they had provided inadequate gloves etc.) or a failure to follow protocols correctly. The cases of care givers catching it in Africa can probably be put down to the fact that the scale of the problem overwhelmed the procedures.

 

[Andy BB]

On a point of order here Inadequate gloves? Does Ebola transmit through unbroken skin, or - like AIDS - require soft tissue/eye/broken skin to infect? Or is it more likely that the nurse wiped her eyes or mouth with the infected hand afterwards? Or licked her lip? Or maybe a patient sneezed or coughed in her face/eyes/mouth (anyone travelling regularly on the London Underground will have had that happen to them on occasion!) After all Ebola can be transmitted via saliva (cough/sneeze) and sweat.

 

[nettles150390]

Honestly i dont think it should matter how the desiese is spread. Because bo matter how its spread theres always that chance even if its mimscule. So would it not be logical to simply say anyone working with an infectious/contagious desiese in another country must under go quarantine. That way you reduce that slight chance to zero chance.

 

[mountainm]

Honestly i dont think it should matter how the desiese is spread. Because bo matter how its spread theres always that chance even if its mimscule. So would it not be logical to simply say anyone working with an infectious/contagious desiese in another country must under go quarantine. That way you reduce that slight chance to zero chance.

Or on another note. Let ot in we could do with some population thinning

But we'd still have to quarantine them in the UK. So they'd still have to fly back. We know someone is safe if they don't have a fever. Temperatures are already monitored closely with daily check ins. There are significant safety procedures in place already, that's how these incidents are caught.

However people like to run around claiming the Sky is falling in when it clearly isn't.

Had anyone in the UK contracted the disease from someone else in the uk?

 

[nettles150390]

Thats a point why arent we quarantining them over there,?