It's the fact that AIDS is much harder to catch which made it much harder to contain. (The problem with the latest outbreak is that the effect on individuals is slightly less drastic than usual - this gives people time to go around infecting people before they die.)
"But then, one animal after the next began to die." Surely a thing is before the next not after it?
"faint chance"? It'll be a bloody mracle if it IS contained. I suspect it is already far too late...
In article , Tim Streater writes
Diego García, then if the Ebola doesn't get them, the radiation will.
And you can be a transmitted by those with no symptoms.
It said on the radio you are only contagious after symptoms appear.
I didn't say I supported the theory, only that it arose from the fact that the disease was first identified in Manhattan, long before it became epidemic in Africa. However, it is true that the exact origins are unclear and are still the subject of debate and study. Some evidence does suggest that it probably pre-dates the Manhattan vaccinations by at least a decade, possibly longer.
Remember its been translated from the German. Der Spiegel is a German newspaper I occasionally peruse to exercise my shadenfreude as their energiewiende goes even more t*ts up.
Just put the waste near the high level nuclear waste and you won't need to worry about rats.
On 02/10/14 08:58, "Nightjar
No, I think it is to date at least in the West, under control. The A & E I was in two days ago had a map of Africa in it, and a bit in red - 'do you come from there' stuff.
They are bracing themselves in case, and that's the best thing possible
What is worrying is that no one is quite sure of the vectors
On 02/10/14 15:49, "Nightjar
Despite all the publicity, and it being very infectious with a high mortality rate, as killers go, so far the ebola outbreak pales into insignificance compared with malaria. This, from
"According to the latest estimates...... there were about 207 million cases of malaria in 2012 (with an uncertainty range of 135 million to
287 million) and an estimated 627,000 deaths (with an uncertainty range of 473,000 to 789,000). Most deaths occur among children living in Africa where a child dies every minute from malaria".
Tuberculosis kills even more. In 2012, 1.3 million people died from it.
Overseas aid by governments has got nothing whatsoever to do with foreign investment by for-profit commercial companies.
The other conclusion is though, that countries like this, many years ago before the communication age must have been almost destroyed by similar diseases. I guess nowadays, though du to the travel aspect, these things can spread out of hand. The question remains though, do we simply quaranteen all people who go there and do nothing and let it take its course, or do we help. If we help, I feel that its already too late. There is no readily available treatment in sufficient quantities to actually do the usual of giving people all around the current outbreak some form of immunity from it. Brian
Well, yes. Just the same as poverty and famines and drought killed millions, and easily preventable diseases killed millions more.
It's modern travel and high density living that is a problem.
Before modern travel, most people wouldn't venture much more than a few miles from their home, ie return trip by foot in a day and have time to do productive work at their destination. Communication between groups would be limited. Something like Ebola pops up bad news for that group and maybe one or nearby with close ties but word would get around and those groups and their members would be shuned. If you heard that a village the best part of days walk away had its members dropping dead with rather nasty symptoms would you go and visit it? If you saw one of them out and about would you give 'em a hug?
With the high living density in towns and cities the oporunities of transmission are far higher and far quicker than in a small community. The sanitary conditions (or rather lack of) in many of the poorer parts of a great many cities doesn't help either.
I think it's going to get alot worse before it gets better. I don't think we can just abandon them. What can be done though? Remove victims from their homes to slightly reduce the spread would be good, isolate people in their homes who have been in contact with a victim for 7days. But all that takes an extensive support system once you have a few hundred families in isolation.
I'd like to know who witnesssed it first, surely such a document would need a witness to sign it.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required