Ebola outbreak, and other potential epidemics

[kenneal - lagger]

A scare like this would be a good way for Russia to get back at the US for its instigation of sanctions over Ukraine.

Just thinking out loud.

[fuzzy]

I've read 'year of the flood' by Margaret Atwood, in which a psychopath engineers and spreads a lethal virus that wipes out almost all humans.

If we look through history it usually is infectious disease that finally kills the most people even if the contributing factors are wars, famines, or economic collapse. Influenza in 1918 is a case in point.

I very much doubt even in this technological age we could engineer the virus which will kill the most in the coming pandemics. Nature is just too good at doing it herself for us to get there first. As the hungry spread ever deeper into the forest and eat ever more dubious bushmeat, we are flushing out nature's remaining pathogens who have not yet crossed from their adapted hosts to our unprepared immune systems.

Unfortunately, I think they had the technology 40 years ago. You need to find what the Japanese were up to before/in WW2. These guys were given a free pass by the US military for their inside info. Try 'unit 731' if you have a strong stomach.

http://cryptome.info/0001/bioweap.htm

[snow hope]

The WHO declares Ebola "an International Emergency".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28702356

This is an epidemic on the verge of becoming a pandemic.....

[UndercoverElephant]

With less than 1000 deaths so far I don't think we can say this is on the verge of being a pandemic. What's unusual about this situation is that this is a relatively new-to-science disease, and there's never been an outbreak this big before. With most diseases capable of killing a large number of people there is a lot of historical data about the nature of epidemics/pandemics for that disease, but for ebola that data is entirely missing because it was always previously brought under control before it got to this stage.

And the unknown is frightening in its own way. An ebola pandemic is the devil we don't know. I personally don't believe it poses a serious threat in the developed world, but there are many parts of the world where the arrival of ebola could combine with an existing chaotic situation with devastating results. Just imagine ebola arriving in Iraq, Palestine or Syria.

[snow hope]

I personally don't believe it poses a serious threat in the developed world, but there are many parts of the world where the arrival of ebola could combine with an existing chaotic situation with devastating results. Just imagine ebola arriving in Iraq, Palestine or Syria.

I really hope you are right UE. But I am not convinced by your analysis that it would only be chaotic or devastating in the "third" world. My view is that if it spread to the third world as mentioned, we would not be able to constrain it anywhere.

[PS_RalphW]

There are reports of state workers in the affected countries staying home and refusing to come out to work in order to avoid infection. If this develops out of the region it could result in widespread panic and shutdown of the economy beyond the actual damage done by the disease.

It takes up to 3 weeks for symptoms to appear, although it is reported that carriers are not infectious (or less infectious) in that period, People would run from everybody with a cold or hayfever.

This could evolve into the next black swan that tips the global economy back into recession.

[adam2]

There are reports of state workers in the affected countries staying home and refusing to come out to work in order to avoid infection. If this develops out of the region it could result in widespread panic and shutdown of the economy beyond the actual damage done by the disease.

It takes up to 3 weeks for symptoms to appear, although it is reported that carriers are not infectious (or less infectious) in that period, People would run from everybody with a cold or hayfever.

This could evolve into the next black swan that tips the global economy back into recession.

Yes.
keep an eye on trains to Brimpsfield, see picture to left.

[kenneal - lagger]

........... I personally don't believe it poses a serious threat in the developed world, ..........

One of the problems in West Africa is the population not trusting health workers and caring for sick people at home thus helping the disease to spread. In most first world countries, especially Europe with its almost universal free health care, at the first sign of illness people make a beeline for the nearest doctor. Early diagnosis and the resultant isolation and checking of contacts would check the spread of the disease in its tracks.

One problem in the UK could be the difficulty of getting a GP appointment in less than a week. Would flood A&E though! Which might put people off going there once it was found to be full of Ebola sufferers. Ah! well!

[madibe]

Looks as though it is airborne to a limited extent (droplets of vapour from the infected) - apparently this is limited compared to a flu virus that can propagate through large volumes of air. But being close is enough.

There was a recent trial with infected pigs (yes, they can be carriers) and monkeys that where kept in a cage close to the pig-pens. All the monkeys died 12-21 days after the last of the pigs snuffed it.

No contact was made; the virus was transmitted via pig snot / breath.

This also raises the point mentioned earlier about the virus killing people faster than it can be spread. With an incubation period of 3 weeks this is not so. How many people do you contact in 3 weeks - also this virus CAN be spread by touching a contaminated objet. Bring on the toilet seat jokes!

Yes, you could catch it off a toilet seat, a steering wheel, a kettle handle etc etc. I've not read how long the virus is viable in such circumstances though. Presumably only as long as there is a wet medium for it to inhabit.

MSN and other US news channels are starting to mention the ability of Ebola to be airborne. But apart from that, the only other sources are medical/university reports re the experiments as mentioned above.

I see one Samaritans health worker is infected...she didn't come into contact with Ebola victims...she hosed down the boots / gloves of the doctors and nurses isolation suits....

Shut the borders could be good advice, although no doubt would be seen as over the top.

I don't really think that our 'superior' healthcare would help much if this was airborne and hit a large close community like London for example. By the time people stated keeling over it would be too late.

Bring out your dead except... that no one want's to go anywhere near the dead.

[PS_RalphW]

I think this current strain appears to be slightly less deadly than previous ones, about 55-90% - which means that it spreads more efficiently because you don't die quite so quickly once you become ill (and infectious).

You only become infectious once symptoms appear, but you can travel a long way in 2-3 weeks these days. Outbreaks could appear literally anywhere.

[madibe]

Exactly my point Ralph. 55% is still pretty scary... and those that do survive are probably crippled since it is not kind to the internal organs!

[madibe]

Correction - monkeys died 8 to 12 days after exposure to airborne Ebola:

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/ ... rne-112112

Advice to airline crew regards airborne etc...

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/air/manag ... lines.html

[RenewableCandy]

Poor monkeys

[madibe]

Indeed.

It mentions that the seat of the infection was in the monkeys lungs, so leading to the conclusion that it was from inhaling vapour. /airborne particles.

[emordnilap]

It would be great to think that we could close all borders effectively, stop all entries and exits to our respective countries and be self-sufficient in food, wouldn't it?