Ebola outbreak, and other potential epidemics

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... frica.html
A five-year-old boy with possible Ebola symptoms has been tested at New York's Bellevue Hospital after returning from a family trip to West Africa.

The child was reportedly vomiting, had bloodshot eyes and a 103F fever when emergency medical workers wearing protective Hazmat suits rushed him from his Bronx home on Sunday night at 9pm.

The boy has been quarantined with his mother at New York's designated Ebola care center. Her health is being monitored and she is exhibiting no symptoms.

He had returned from a family trip to Guinea on Saturday night.
This is insane. Absolutely insane. Why are people being allowed to go on family trips to Guinea? Ebola is utterly out of control in West Africa, and the western world is in disarray, as its ebola-response plans have been found repeatedly lacking. Trips like this can easily be prohibited, for very little cost in terms of economic damage. Yet it is not being done, and I keep hearing politicians and "health workers" saying that a travel ban would be "counter-productive".

I don't get it. I already thought the world was mad, but this takes the biscuit.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Have you read the leader comment and article in this week's New Scientist?
Travel bans aren’t the answer: distancing ourselves from countries and people afflicted with Ebola could prove tragic for the world
And in the article by Debora MacKenzie:
health and development experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to an untraceable rush of people across land borders.
Remember Debora MacKenzie was the New Scientist correspondant who wrote the article last March warning us about Ebola. The article that the world ignored.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:Have you read the leader comment and article in this week's New Scientist?
Travel bans aren’t the answer: distancing ourselves from countries and people afflicted with Ebola could prove tragic for the world
No, but that sort of comment is typical of the madness I am seeing from many sources. Distancing ourselves from an out-of-control outbreak of a very dangerous virus isn't the answer? Oh yes it f***ing is. These people are playing politically-correct games with the lives of billions of people. It is insanity.
And in the article by Debora MacKenzie:
health and development experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to an untraceable rush of people across land borders.
OK...so let's examine the logic here. They are saying that if a ban is put in place, people will try to get out, bringing the disease with them. This sort of makes sense if you believe that the outbreak is being brought under control, and that most of those people are never going to be exposed to it. Then they'll just stay in the Hot Zone and hopefully this will minimise the amount of infected people leaving it. Meanwhile, back in reality, the probability of getting the outbreak under control is zero. So now what is most likely to happen? Well, probably a hell of a lot more people in those three countries are going to be infected, what is left of the health system will collapse, and there is going to be an untraceable raging torrent of people across land borders.

It's madness, Biff. And the people responsible for peddling this advice are, in my opinion, criminally negligent. It is very, very bad advice.
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

biffvernon wrote:Have you read the leader comment and article in this week's New Scientist?
Travel bans aren’t the answer: distancing ourselves from countries and people afflicted with Ebola could prove tragic for the world
And in the article by Debora MacKenzie:
health and development experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to an untraceable rush of people across land borders.
Remember Debora MacKenzie was the New Scientist correspondant who wrote the article last March warning us about Ebola. The article that the world ignored.
haw haw haw thats the most funny thing I've every read on this site, and thats the ideas your holding up as smart HAW HAW HAW

I love this "distancing ourselves from countries and people afflicted with Ebola could prove tragic for the world " damn fool women anyone with a bit of sense would distance themselves from someone with a deadly disease they could catch .

People like me will come through this fine, Ive got my NBC equipment plenty of food and you wont see me going and helping no strangers

And that untraceable migration would have been very traceable a generation ago, now they might be hard to find but you start a illness with people bleeding from their eyes and I cant see a thing better to wake people up .



:D
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

jonny2mad wrote:damn fool women
That part was probably written by a man. It was from the editorial.

The 'damn fool women' was reporting on what has been published in that foolish journal, The Lancet, in these two articles:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin ... 5/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 8/abstract

I suggest you read the whole of Debora MacKensie's pieces in New Scientist before damning her as a fool.

I think if we are looking for damn fools we need to look at governments and their treasurers rather than the scientists and UN officials who have been explaining what is needed and asking for the funding.
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

Just to counter the fuzzy warm crap in the New Scientist, an ER doctor summarizes the horrors of a realistic scenario:

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/arti ... than-ebola
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Here's some more fuzzy warm crap (aka science):
http://theconversation.com/why-people-w ... bola-33500
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

fuzzy wrote:Just to counter the fuzzy warm crap in the New Scientist,
What exactly is fuzzy, warm or crappy about the reports in the New Scientist, which has been giving warnings about the current outbreak since last March and reported on previous outbreaks as they have happened since 1976?
boisdevie
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:48 pm
Location: N Lancashire

Post by boisdevie »

As soon as ebola gets anywhere near me I'm going to quarantine myself. But yeah, let people travel here there and everywhere as the 'right' to travel is clearly far more important than a few million deaths.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

It may be counter-intuitive, but the consensus amongst those who are working in the field seems to be that the call for isolating West Africa with travel bans will result in more deaths.
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:14 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Post by Mean Mr Mustard »

biffvernon wrote:It may be counter-intuitive, but the consensus amongst those who are working in the field seems to be that the call for isolating West Africa with travel bans will result in more deaths.
Possibly because those in the field need to keep their own exit strategy intact?

Ban civilian flights, set up an airline/military airbridge for medics with hotel room service quarantine.

As this ramps up there will be an exodus anyway, not least because of food supply issues. If I had a car or motorbike in one of those cities, I'd be looking for jerrycans and fuel to get the hell out as far away as possible.
1855 Advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil -
"Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory."

The Future's so Bright, I gotta wear Night Vision Goggles...
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:Here's some more fuzzy warm crap (aka science):
http://theconversation.com/why-people-w ... bola-33500
Nope, the fuzzy crap isn't science. It's politically-correct nonsense.

Not everything that comes from the pen of scientist is science.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

The graph towards the bottom of this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28755033
suggests that Ebola is still spreading, but that the rate at which it is spreading has slowed down and that it is no longer doubling about every 4 weeks.

Official figures almost certainly understate the death toll, but what we do not know is has the degree of understatement got worse or not?

If for example the official figures consistently report half the actual deaths, then the graph is cause for slight optimism.
If however official figures formerly reported half the true death toll but are now reporting only perhaps one in five, then that is bad.

At any rate we may see a lull until the disease spreads to somewhere else that is poor, crowded, and not well informed.
Last edited by adam2 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... for-ebola/ obama planning to bring ebola patients to usa, not sure if its true but might be, if so hes mad
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8911
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

adam2 wrote:The graph towards the bottom of this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28755033
suggests that Ebola is still spreading, but that the rate at which it is spreading has slowed down and that it is no longer doubling about every 4 weeks.

Official figures almost certainly understate the death toll, but what we do not know is has the degree of understatement got worse or not?

If for example the official figures consistently report half the actual deaths, then the graph is cause for slight optimism.
If however official figures formerly reported half the true death toll but are now reporting only perhaps one in five, then that is bad.

At any rate we may a lull until the disease spreads to somewhere else that is poor, crowded, and not well informed.
The official figures certainly show a marked slowing, in fact its not even exponential any more. The number of new cases has been ~flat for 6 weeks now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Total.png

Now, we could be seeing a collapse of the reporting infrastructure. If they only have the resource to identify 1000 case a week, that would explain the flattening. However, I think, largely behavioural change and awareness raising, might actually have 'worked'. Halting the exponential spread, allows enough time for more isolation beds to be brought into service and for the vaccine to be developed.
Post Reply