Ebola

[dont_do_it_doug.]

At the moment its pretty controllable, its transmitted between people/animals via bodily fluid.

The main issue I see is the more people/animals that get infected the increased risk of a mutation into an airborne disease. And then your talking about something much more contagious with the lethality that Ebola has, and that's a pretty scary thought tbh.

In over 100 years of studying disease, past and present, they've yet to discover a single one that affects humans that has mutated in such a way.

It's a scary thought, but it's not a legitimate one. Nobody worries about HIV becoming airborne so why Ebola?

Edited October 14, 2014 by dont_do_it_doug.

[Rugeley Villa]

yeah from what ive read its possible but very unlikely and no other virus has gone on to change its dynamics and do this so i think that should be very low down on the worry list.

[MakemineVanilla]

The best step for ebola to maximise its global DNA mass, would be to mutate into something less fatal.

 

Killing such a high percentage of its hosts is an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

 

But it seems certain that there will be a small percentage of homo sapiens who have immunity, and who could provide the small surviving population, from which future humans will evolve and repopulate the planet.

 

James Lovelock (95) might live long enough to see his Gaia theories prove correct. 

[PaulC]

If someone with it sneezing over you is it possible to get it that way. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

If someone with it sneezing over you is it possible to get it that way.

That's not airborne. Just so people understand the distinction.

The "good" thing about Ebola is that the symptoms become quickly apparent, there's very little time for the virus to spread before the infected are identified. As things stand, it would be contained very quickly if it ever landed in these shores en mass.

[chrisp65]

 

If someone with it sneezing over you is it possible to get it that way.

That's not airborne. Just so people understand the distinction.

The "good" thing about Ebola is that the symptoms become quickly apparent, there's very little time for the virus to spread before the infected are identified. As things stand, it would be contained very quickly if it ever landed in these shores en mass.

 

 

are you sure about that

 

having just spent a week on tube trains at peek commuter times I'm not sure I agree on this easy containment theory

 

personally, I've stopped slyly licking the necks of other commuters, just to be uber safe

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Depends on what counts as "quickly contained". If it kills a few thousand, even a hundred thousand, it's no big thing in the grand scheme.

Would like it nipped in the bud though myself!

[Ingram85]

Just seen a black & white monkey at the bottom of my garden and a military jeep going down the road!

[MakemineVanilla]

Ebola can be transmitted by both mucous and saliva.

 

Medics and politicians offer the reassurance that Ebola takes a week to become infectious and insist that the infectious are usually too ill to travel but if it takes 2 days to get from Africa to their final destination, I think we have to accept that it is quite possible that a passenger could go from non-infectious to infectious during that period.

 

Therefore it is not impossible to conclude that crowded planes and airports could possibly be sources of infection and it is doubtful that airports are capable of checking every passenger.

 

Do they have the trained staff, quarantine facilities, and the equipment? I doubt it.

 

The refusal to ban flights from the infected areas is very strange, given the risks.

 

When it comes to assessing the reassurances we have been getting about how well equipped the West is for dealing with Ebola, we only have to examine how well, they have done in Spain and America, where in both cases hospital staff have ended up being infected.

 

You can only imagine how NHS hospitals like Stafford would manage such a situation.

 

If we are to be reassured that early symptoms are much like flu and patients do not become infectious until they are really ill, then we have to assume that people with full-blown symptoms of Ebola will not be diagnosed before they are infectious and will have come into contact with many people.

 

So bearing in mind these factors I think the reassurances we are offered have more to do with quelling panic, and justifying political decisions, rather than a realistic assessment of the risks.

 

 

 

[AVFCforever1991]

Just seen a black & white monkey at the bottom of my garden and a military jeep going down the road!

Planet of the apes is happening...

[chrisp65]

Having got on an aircraft (sorry Tony don't know what type 'normal looking') at Mombasa feeling perfectly fine but then proceeded to have the most incredible shits all over Sudan and Egypt and end up laying on the floor in a Heathrow toilet wondering if I was dead, I do think we are kidding ourselves that infectious people would be contained by default.

 

But I agree, it's more to do with stopping the hysterical types getting hysterical too early and buggering up the Christmas sales and GDP stats.

 

On the upside, there's never been a cheaper time for an all inclusive holiday to West Africa.

[Frobisher]

Just seen a black & white monkey at the bottom of my garden and a military jeep going down the road!

Planet of the apes is happening...

Outbreak. Save us Dustin.

[Risso]

 

Ebola can be transmitted by both mucous and saliva.

 

Medics and politicians offer the reassurance that Ebola takes a week to become infectious and insist that the infectious are usually too ill to travel but if it takes 2 days to get from Africa to their final destination, I think we have to accept that it is quite possible that a passenger could go from non-infectious to infectious during that period.

 

Therefore it is not impossible to conclude that crowded planes and airports could possibly be sources of infection and it is doubtful that airports are capable of checking every passenger.

 

Do they have the trained staff, quarantine facilities, and the equipment? I doubt it.

 

The refusal to ban flights from the infected areas is very strange, given the risks.

 

When it comes to assessing the reassurances we have been getting about how well equipped the West is for dealing with Ebola, we only have to examine how well, they have done in Spain and America, where in both cases hospital staff have ended up being infected.

 

You can only imagine how NHS hospitals like Stafford would manage such a situation.

 

If we are to be reassured that early symptoms are much like flu and patients do not become infectious until they are really ill, then we have to assume that people with full-blown symptoms of Ebola will not be diagnosed before they are infectious and will have come into contact with many people.

 

So bearing in mind these factors I think the reassurances we are offered have more to do with quelling panic, and justifying political decisions, rather than a realistic assessment of the risks.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words get yourselves to Tesco and stock up on Pot Noodles.

[chrisp65]

listen very carefully, put your ear to the ground

 

20 metres down, wacko nut job survivalists are having a tinned food and bottled water party

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

Ebola can be transmitted by both mucous and saliva.

 

Medics and politicians offer the reassurance that Ebola takes a week to become infectious and insist that the infectious are usually too ill to travel but if it takes 2 days to get from Africa to their final destination, I think we have to accept that it is quite possible that a passenger could go from non-infectious to infectious during that period.

 

Therefore it is not impossible to conclude that crowded planes and airports could possibly be sources of infection and it is doubtful that airports are capable of checking every passenger.

 

Do they have the trained staff, quarantine facilities, and the equipment? I doubt it.

 

The refusal to ban flights from the infected areas is very strange, given the risks.

 

When it comes to assessing the reassurances we have been getting about how well equipped the West is for dealing with Ebola, we only have to examine how well, they have done in Spain and America, where in both cases hospital staff have ended up being infected.

 

You can only imagine how NHS hospitals like Stafford would manage such a situation.

 

If we are to be reassured that early symptoms are much like flu and patients do not become infectious until they are really ill, then we have to assume that people with full-blown symptoms of Ebola will not be diagnosed before they are infectious and will have come into contact with many people.

 

So bearing in mind these factors I think the reassurances we are offered have more to do with quelling panic, and justifying political decisions, rather than a realistic assessment of the risks.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words get yourselves to Tesco and stock up on Pot Noodles.

 

 

I think they call it 'prepping' in America?

 

I don't know about Pot Noodles but I did think the bunker in Cormac McCarthy's The Road had some appeal. 

[ender4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34637377

The British people preparing for the end of the world

British survivalists - known as "preppers" - are fixated on the need to survive in the event of a catastrophe. What motivates them?

Beside a stream in the middle of the Bedfordshire countryside, Peter Stanford - who describes himself as a motivational life coach - is pumping up his inflatable canoe by hand.

This is his chosen method of transport for escaping an "apocalyptic situation", which he views as anything from a financial crash to a repeat of the London riots.

"I'm not living on a knife-edge waiting for a catastrophe to happen," he explains.

Stanford is hoping to take to water after sunset - under the cover of darkness - to practise what might happen if he needed to flee. He believes this would be the optimal time of day to make his escape, so as not to be seen by others who might wish to steal his resources.