Ebola outbreak, and other potential epidemics

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 08 Aug 2014, 22:43

If you can see the seriousness of the situation, or even if you can't, please listen to this video of somebody who has been involved at the leading edge of fighting this disease.

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/ ... 5nm8Gz-zNl

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 09 Aug 2014, 00:03

the cat's already out of the bag is what the man said

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 09 Aug 2014, 00:15

Yes. Time to put your plans into action...... as my son has just said, is it not better to be safe than sorry?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 09 Aug 2014, 18:34

Oh yes it was.

If, and it's a very big if, there was a medical/scientific case for temporarily restricting people's movements to contain a contagious disease, there would be no special reason for using national boundaries to delineate movement restrictions. The geographical spread of a virus is unlikely to coincide with our arbitrary lines. Ken's point, is not only irrelevant to my contention that people should be free to go where they like, it is also irrelevant to disease control.

Now air travel? Oh that's on another thread.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 09 Aug 2014, 23:57

Please refer to my previous post.

Post by **adam2** » 10 Aug 2014, 10:27

snow hope wrote:Yes. Time to put your plans into action...... as my son has just said, is it not better to be safe than sorry?

Yes, I am inclined to agree.
What sort of plans do you have in mind to put into action ?

In my view, there are two main risks.
Firstly there is the risk of being infected, with death being likely though not inevitable as a result.

Secondly, I forsee a risk of breakdown of public services, utilities, and food deliveries.
If workers in say the National Grid or power stations fail to turn up for work due to actual or feared infection then power cuts are likely.
Just one single SUSPECTED Ebola case in a large power plant could result in power cuts if the remainder of the staff were placed in isolation, or decided that attending work was risky, and the power plant was shut down as a result.
Somewhat similar arguments apply to oil refineries, water works, sewage disposal, and natural gas supply. A handful of actual or suspected Ebola cases could have very widespread effects.

It would not take many ships that fail arrive, or that no one is willing to unload, to result in food shortages.
Consider likewise a handful of oil tanker drivers falling sick, or going on strike for danger money. No diesel fuel delivered to a logistics firm that delivers food to a major supermarket, shortages within hours.

Precautions to avoid infection of oneself could reasonably include increased attention to personal hygiene and limiting travel. If infection in the area is suspected, then it would best not leaves ones home AT ALL.

Large stocks of food and other consumables would be needed, together with fuel and equipment for managing without utility services.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 10 Aug 2014, 11:48

When there's a case of infection in a European country, then I'll start to think about these sorts of preparations. By that I mean somebody has caught the disease in Europe, not just arrived here having been infected elsewhere. I agree with you that the consequences of fear of the disease are actually more disruptive than the disease itself, but I'm yet to be convinced that ebola will get out of control in the developed world. The places where it is currently out of control are some of the poorest in the world, with very low standards of literacy, education and health services. That doesn't mean it can't cause chaos here, but I'm yet to be convinced.

Post by **adam2** » 10 Aug 2014, 12:51

I don't think serious consequences from ebola in the UK are likely, but IMHO it would be prudent to take precautions just in case.
Many of us already have preps in case of food shortage or utility failure, those who have not taken such precautions may wish to review this.

A panic could spread rapidly and result in shortages very quickly indeed, it might be too late to stock up if you leave this until cases occur in Western Europe.
I would urge stocking up now, not leaving it until later.

If the alarm passes, as it PROBABLY will, then a reserve of food and other preps is worthwhile to keep for other emergencies as discussed elsewhere in these forums.

One should also consider the moral aspects of stockpiling. To stock up whilst times are still normal hurts nobody and provides retailers and producers with a little welcome extra trade.
To delay such stockpiling until shortages are apparent could be considered as immoral hoarding as others are thereby deprived.

Post by **clv101** » 10 Aug 2014, 20:47

UndercoverElephant wrote:... but I'm yet to be convinced that ebola will get out of control in the developed world.

Indeed, I think it highly unlikely that Ebola, the virus, will have any material impact in the developed world. The fear and reaction might have some impact (we're already seeing travel restrictions) but I don't expect thousands of people get ill here.

As with any scenario though, it could happen so being resilient to the potential impacts (common to many scenarios) is of course prudent.

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 12 Aug 2014, 23:24

Ah, according to the news its all over.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Aug 2014, 00:25

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:... but I'm yet to be convinced that ebola will get out of control in the developed world.
Indeed, I think it highly unlikely that Ebola, the virus, will have any material impact in the developed world. The fear and reaction might have some impact (we're already seeing travel restrictions) but I don't expect thousands of people get ill here.

As with any scenario though, it could happen so being resilient to the potential impacts (common to many scenarios) is of course prudent.

With three billion people in the undeveloped third world and a good share of them unable to read or write I think that the developed world being apparently safe gives small comfort. I expect this to spread farther and last longer then most of the "experts"are now predicting.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 13 Aug 2014, 08:14

A bird-flu has far more potential to cause devastation.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Aug 2014, 09:22

biffvernon wrote:A bird-flu has far more potential to cause devastation.

That is quite likely. It becomes a math problem. Population times rate of infection times death rate. Either one in Cairo to Dhaka would not be a good thing. Perhaps it begins to spread.
http://azh.kz/en/news/view/4517

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 15 Aug 2014, 11:38

maudibe wrote:Ah, according to the news its all over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28798542

The scale of the Ebola outbreak appears to be "vastly underestimated", the UN's health agency says, as the death toll from the disease reaches 1,069.

This is nowhere near over.

Post by **adam2** » 15 Aug 2014, 12:36

UndercoverElephant wrote:
maudibe wrote:Ah, according to the news its all over.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28798542

The scale of the Ebola outbreak appears to be "vastly underestimated", the UN's health agency says, as the death toll from the disease reaches 1,069.
This is nowhere near over.

Yes, it is now "yesterdays news" and largely out of the headlines, but that is not the same as being over.