Ebola: This Is Why Westerners Who Have Contracted It

[ChillDoubt]

Really ought to be treated as best they can in situ:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29514920

Why import it? Doubtless it's on it's way soon enough via air travel etc but please let's try and keep a lid on it as far as feasibly possible.

[jim360]

While I'd agree with that sentiment it also should be true that if better treatment is available in someone's native country then they should be brought back -- again, the risks if the disease spreading too far as so low that it seems unnecessary to keep people in less-than-ideal conditions if an alternative is available.

What I would agree with is that we shouldn't be shipping sick native Africans here; the difference is that any native British citizens who have gone abroad to help have a right to treatment in the UK and that right should be respected ahead of the minimal risk; for those with no right to such treatment, while I'd certainly like to see it extended if possible (in an ideal situation, who wouldn't?) it's realistically wholly unfeasible. Too many people are sick, and then the risk grows anyway.

[Sqad]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1370145.html

[stuey]

Is there really much difference between shipping sick native Africans and British subjects who have gone abroad to help? if either category have contracted the disease do you really want them in your midst?...Harsh, well yes.

[Ric.ror]

What actually is Ebola?
BTW - it was mentioned on an episode of friends this weekend and that was one of the earlier series

[jim360]

Well yes, there is a difference stuey, in that one is entitled to treatment in the UK as a UK citizen, and the others aren't entitled to such treatment. So while we might like to treat both here if that were feasible, it's not -- but those who have the right to such treatment should get it.

The risk of a large outbreak is just not large enough to justify "abandoning" UK citizens (or, in a wider sense, European/ US citizens).

[janbee]

Ric, yes, that episode was about 20 years ago and ebola had already been on the go for many years.

[ludwig]

It's difficult to see how it's containable. People don't seem to show any symptoms for a good few days by which time they've been in contact with others, so by the time they're isolated, it's already moved on.

[Kromovaracun]

But while they're carrying, they're not contagious. You're contagious when you actually start bleeding/vomiting/sweating, and (if you survive) it can be sexually transmitted after you're caught.

The likelihood of surviving, however, is extremely low. And once your symptomatic (and actually contagious) it normally kills you too quickly to spread far.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/ebola-outbreak-not-cards-u-s-cdc-director-says-n169836

[Kromovaracun]

"after you're caught"

argh what is wrong with me. I have no idea what I meant by this.

[ludwig]

// after you're caught //

If you think about it, It actually makes more sense to say that you've been caught by a disease, rather than you've caught a disease.

[vulcan42]

According to a radio programme earlier today a dead body is more contagious. Perhaps this is why it's spreading so quickly in Africa, there aren't enough precautions being taken when dealing with the body.