Advanced search

Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have medical concerns, please seek medical attention; if you think your problem could be acute, do so immediately. Even qualified doctors can't diagnose over the internet, so do bear that in mind when seeking or giving advice.

About public response to Ebola?

(107 Posts)
greyhoundgymnastics Mon 13-Oct-14 22:50:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Everyotherfreckle Mon 13-Oct-14 22:58:39

YANBU and DH and i were talking about it yesterday. Along with the fact that even though thousands more people in underdeveloped countries die of things like malaria, or floods, or starvation every single day, people are suddenly worried about ebola because it could, you know, like, affect people in the western world.

greyhoundgymnastics Mon 13-Oct-14 23:01:10

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

greyhoundgymnastics Mon 13-Oct-14 23:01:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alAswad Mon 13-Oct-14 23:02:16

I agree with you - admittedly I haven't been following the Ebola story very closely but there have been several other news stories where I've had similar thoughts over the past few years. I think it's natural to some extent though - people worry about themselves and their loved ones first, and only afterwards do they think about the wider situation. It's maybe not right and I think it can be hard to be patient with that kind of response, particularly if you know people who are actually affected by the worst of whatever the situation is, but it is something that everyone does to some extent.

Everyother's point is a very good one.

ouchLegohurts Mon 13-Oct-14 23:02:16

I totally agree Greyhound, I think it has totally highlighted the developed world's insular attitude and lack of real concern for the plight of those in Africa

EatShitDerek Mon 13-Oct-14 23:02:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MildDrPepperAddiction Mon 13-Oct-14 23:03:58

Yanbu. It's as if it doesn't matter that over 4000 people are dead because it's not America or Europe. hmm

landrover Mon 13-Oct-14 23:05:28

Well, having listened to the uk virus expert on radio 2 in the week, who said that we should be stopping any people coming in from the ebola affected countries, I think we have every right to be concerned! He said that one person carrying the virus could wipe out a country! Hmmm and you think the government can be trusted to look after us? Apparently the virus can exist for several hours on surfaces (think of sneezing etc) and when a person dies, the tissues become looser and release the virus more quickly!! Yep, I think we should be concerned!

lurkernowposter Mon 13-Oct-14 23:06:27

If you want to see some real hysteria have a look at the Fox News website where you'll read comments stating Obama has sent U.S troops to Africa to catch Ebola and take it back to the U.S to infect Americans because he's a Muslim, I'm not making this up!

greyhoundgymnastics Mon 13-Oct-14 23:08:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scaevola Mon 13-Oct-14 23:09:54

It gets a capital letter becuas that's the official version virologists decided on.

WHO s gravely concerned because the outbreak could wreck the affected countries and could spread to neighbouring ones. And travellers could take it anywhere. Horrible if you are one of the ones in a secondary outbreak, but not likely to take hold here (Nigeria contained it on 8 deaths from 20 cases) But what if those travellers went to a country without a good health infrastructure and with a large population?

The WHO aim is to reduce the number of new cases so they are falling (not rising) month on month.

And the prediction is a 'handful' (<10) cases in UK, but that estimate is under review.

If the exponential rise of the disease is not checked, then all assessments of likelihood of spread will need to be revised.

landrover Mon 13-Oct-14 23:11:36

Im sorry, but the R2 virus expert said that most definitely, sneezing does pass the virus on. But in any case, the nurse that has just been diagnosed caught it by touching her face as she took her glove off? Seriously a big worry in any event, and a virus that kills!

Jollyphonics Mon 13-Oct-14 23:11:58

I'm not sure I agree. I think, as a nation, we are quite compassionate and concerned about other countries. Every time there's a fund-raiser for aid abroad the British population donate millions. Of course we care about what is happening in other countries, but it's human nature to be primarily concerned with your own loved ones.

landrover Mon 13-Oct-14 23:13:34

But I do love the fact that we will be giving people questionnaires before they arrive, and all our hospitals are prepared, so thats alright then!

scaevola Mon 13-Oct-14 23:15:56

It will only be passed on by sneezing if a contagious person actually sneezes on you (you'd need to be within about a metre at the time of the sneeze).

It doesn't float around in the air as some other viruses do.

greyhoundgymnastics Mon 13-Oct-14 23:17:10

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

wurlycurly Mon 13-Oct-14 23:17:33

YANBU. No one seems to give a damn about the thousands who are affected in Africa. Of course people are concerned about its movement around the world but we could keep some perspective and spare a thought for the people who are really suffering.

landrover Mon 13-Oct-14 23:22:07

Scaevola, thankyou, that is what i have heard x

MissBlennerhasset Mon 13-Oct-14 23:27:57

YANBU. Once again, people demonstrate that they only give a shit when something could potentially happen to THEM. Fuck the rest of the starving/diseased around the world. People depress me sometimes.

If people would only read up on it, too. The guy who 'discovered' the disease has even said that he would happily sit next to an Ebola sufferer on the tube, it's not an airborne virus and to all the people who think that it 'could' become so, it has about as much chance as HIV to become airborne/more contagious.

scousadelic Mon 13-Oct-14 23:29:50

I think we've all seen enough disaster movies that begin with governments reassuring people that something is not going to happen to make worrying seem reasonable.

It has always been the way that people are more concerned for people like them than for others, that is why the news tells us that one or two Brits are involved when they are speaking of disasters involving many abroad. I think that is quite normal as we identify with them more but it doesn't mean we don't care or feel compassion.

WaywardOn3 Tue 14-Oct-14 05:13:55

Do you have the game Plague Inc on your phone/tablet? <- random I know but sort of relevant for scare mongering. Pick the country Ebola started in, input the starting symptoms and how it can be spread. As the game progresses input any further symptoms/ways it can be spread that develope. It won't be accurate as obvs it's just a game and it has a time limit. I doubt you'd manage to destroy the world with it

Basically if there ever is a situation where the whole world could risk infection/death I'd be moving to Greenland as those people are the hardest to infect/kill in that game. I have yet to move there :-)

Yes Ebola poses a risk and yes air/water traffic are very likely to increase the risks of it spreading outside the affected countries. Since the only real 'cure' is one that had never been tested on people and they don't fully know how the cure could affect people, limiting disease spreading is surely a good think as if catching it early.

Stealthpolarbear Tue 14-Oct-14 05:24:14

Scouts that is interesting, good point
Land rover that is exactly the sort of reaction the op is talking about. Thousands are dying from other diseases. I get Ebola's 'fear factor' but it isn't rational.

CanadianJohn Tue 14-Oct-14 05:57:28

What I find surprising is the talk of screening passengers at airports AFTER they arrive - after they've been sitting on a plane with 300 other people, breathing the same air and using the same washrooms.

So, if a visitor is found to be infected - how do the authorities plan to track down the other 300 passengers, and anyone they have been in contact with.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to screen passengers BEFORE they get on the plane?

scaevola Tue 14-Oct-14 06:12:47

"Wouldn't it be more sensible to screen passengers BEFORE they get on the plane?"

Yes, and that is why there is exit screening for those leaving affected areas.

Of course, not everyone does leave through a defined departure port (air or sea). The land borders are not marked, let alone controlled, in many places.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now