Ebola.

[TheLovelyBoots]

I'm quite nervous. AIBU?

Hahahaha! It isn't so much ill-informed reporting as not really reporting at all - it's more like some kind of creative writing speakyourbrains piece on why we fear a virus that has such horrible physical consequences (hmmm, I wonder why people might be scared of something that causes such pain?!). Anyway, it goes on about the 'darkness' of Ebola in ways that seem gobsmackingly unaware of the racial implications of the use of that word in this context. Like I said, postcolonial, and unhelpful given that people are really quite worried and need proportionality right now.

Symptoms sickness, diarrhea , sore throat , head ache . Guess what I've had from 2.48am this morning :-(
Gota say I did have a mini panic this morn when I heard the news.
I don't think I've ever had a bug like it before !

Yes well, panic not, Bedsheets, you have no doubt one of the Uk bugs that are going around at the moment, unless of course you live in Sierra Leone or Liberia.

Nope sunny Essex .

so it's only transferable via body fluid
still easy to catch then? as we sneeze all over each other/ cough in each other's faces, get spit on everything

No, as I said before, Ebola is normally considered a disease that spreads through direct contact, i.e. through broken skin, blood, secretions - or via environmental contamination with those fluids (as you might find in a West African field hospital). Sneezing etc. are not generally thought to spread it, though (as I explained) there has been a study that suggested that very close proximity for an extended period of time was sufficient to spread the disease from pigs to monkeys.

Also, we need to distinguish between:

• the incubation period which is about 2 days to 3 weeks, during which the person has no sympboms. Ebola ISN'T infectious during this period

• the symptomatic period, during which Ebola becomes contagious via bodily fluids.

One reason Ebola may not have become an epidemic is because symptoms tend to progress really fast once the incubation period is over. So it becomes pretty obvious that someone is really sick, and (very sadly) people often die very quickly. I know it sounds awful and brutal, but the virulence of Ebola strains seen to date is actually something that limits their transmission.

So conventional medical wisdom is that you would need to spend an extended period of time sitting next to someone to get it, more likely kiss them, or hold them tight when they have died (this is a practice in African countries that does not help with transmission).

Compare this to flu. People are contagious with flu before they feel sick, so they can spread it around fairly easily. It's airborne, so it flies via sneezes and coughs to people feet away. It's less virulent so it doesn't kill a high proportion of people who get it (thank goodness), but this also makes it more common because it has lots of hosts to spread it around - and it is deadly enough to kill half a million people a year, sadly.

Obviously I've missed a lot of technical stuff out here about the genetics and the mutations etc. but hopefully it is a bit reassuring for people.

That is actually reassuring external. I didn't know that people do not spread the infection during the incubation period. Thank you for explaining.

Yes, external now I've read it, it's a colour piece. I like the odd ramble up the garden path, but this one's a bit wanky, so I skipped most of it.

Still, it had a useful snippet of information about the relatively low risk of eating a chicken fed on Ebola-ridden vomit. Now at least I have something to add to those threads where people fret about Sell-By dates.

And I'll bear that in mind next time I pass a pigeon pecking at drunk-spew and feel revolted. .

Anyway, thanks for the other information. Is it your job?

Oh, and what you were saying about darkness and post-colonialism...

The Telegraph link that NorthernLurker gave was fine to my unscientific mind. The comments were breathtaking though.

When I read it this morning, the writer had been back about 20 minutes earlier to mildly rebuke them. I can't really be bothered to go back to see how it's developed because I can guess.

It always makes me wonder why the Telegraph allows it (it's not just them, you get similar comments appended to all so-called quality pages, including Independent and Guardian).

I have to say The Sun and The Mirror appear to have some form of quality control. Even the Mail.

I find the vilest comments are regularly on the Telegraph webpages or Guardian's CiF. They are just expressed better.

I wonder why it's not moderated. It's not that I'm a fan of censorship - far from it.

Neither do I think I'm in danger of being corrupted, or patronisingly think that other people, who don't have the benefit of my education and sensitivity , will for that matter.

I just find the comments embarrassing for the news outlet. We all know morons exist, but why advertise the fact that they read your paper?

Click-per-views for advertisers, I suppose.

OT. It's my job.

external I read that a survivor is infectious for 40 days? men have been told no sex for 40 days after ebola?

I don't read the comments on Telegraph articles. Usually worse than the DM! It's a shame because generally the standards of journalism are pretty good. Glad people found the article useful. I thought it was good and agree that talking about the reproductive number is helpful. I think a lot of our thinking is influenced by things like 'outbreak' and loads of other apocalyptic stuff though - when reality is much less terrifying.

It is possible to have asymptomatic ebola. This may mean that the case fatality rate is lower than what is currently being reported.

I'm supposed to go to Liberia next week

Zorra, will you go? The country is pretty much on lock-down, school is cancelled, as is football - are you visiting family?

Asymptomatic ebola? Have not heard of that.

There was a good piece on ebola on radio 4 today. The reason why pharmaceutical companies haven't been looking for a cure is that other diseases, such as malaria, cholera etc affect millions of people. In contrast, ebola has only ever affected in the hundreds, so this is an unexpected outbreak.

northernlurker I do find the comments on the Telegraph worse than Mail Online. Guardian and CiF and the Independent are also very bad.

I don't know whether that's because I expect higher standards from the readers of qualities or because the Mail and the Sun and Mirror possibly moderate more carefully.

Whatever the reason, I am routinely more disgusted by the comments left on quality websites than on tabloids.

I'm still glad you linked to that article.

PS when you talk about 'outbreak', are you talking about the very entertaining but possibly not very accurate film about Ebola going airborne starring Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo as heroic doctors and a carpet-chewing Donald Sutherland as an evil US Army General?

There was also a supporting role for Kevin Spacey - before he got big enough not to have to do that kind of trash

Asyptoatic Ebola

Original study abstract

Not sure how common it is. Probably not very. 11 out of the 24 close contacts in the study who didn't get Ebola had a response that suggested they were infected. I'm not sure what that looks like in terms of the total number of close contacts, including those that did get Ebola.

Sorry, my 'm' key isn't working properly. That should have said asymptomatic.

Yup that's the film - where Rene Russo shows it's possible to catch highly nasty airborne ebola type virus AND still look glam. Flushed but glam.

Aaaagh!

The BBC 10 O'Clock News has jus described it as "highly contagious"

Don't they have any journalists for science stories who have basic qualifications?

A premature, cautious "phew" - the two American health-care volunteers infected with Ebola are showing signs of improvement.

Nope. I think they got rid of them some time ago.

aaagh. x-post.

I meant the journalists, not the health care volunteers.

I love MN. There are some genuinely knowledgeable, helpful and measured posts on here. Which has helped me no end.

DP was in Ghana last week (in an environment where bodily fluids may have been present, MAY, in the survive-for-4-days-dried-at-cool-temps way, but a whole country away from Liberia). My dramatising brain has combined that with the fact that a) he is abroad again, so I cannot obsessively conduct medicals on him b) for the two days between trips he was complaining of a dodgy tummy and insomnia which obviously had NOTHING to do with dodgy street food and malaria pills and c) most importantly of all, he only had ONE helping of pavlova when he was here.

But after reading the above, and the links, I think I can calm down now .

(of course then my brain starts thinking 'you have just tempted Fate writing that, now he definitely will have it'. I think my certifiable insanity is tbh more of a threat to our family than DP's potential virus...)

"Proper science writers will cover it well. When science stories get into the "mainstream" parts of the media, the quality if reporting is variable (to put it politely - absolute dreadful scaremongering in some outlets)."

I'm a health reported with a genetics degree and know something about epidemiology. I agree that as soon as a science/health story becomes a big story it goes over to the general news desk and a lot of clarity is destroyed. Epidemiology is very hard to predict anyway, hence governments/scientists being more cuatious than may seem necessary to the general public in the past.

I think the Telegraph was suprisingly hysterical today. It is really unike them as they normally have the best health reporting. By the way their comments are unmoderated.

As I said in earlier posts, we don't actually really know how fast ebola would spread in a densly populated area with transportation systems in the west which isn't particulary well prepared to deal with infectious disease.

We don't know how well people with access to western treatments will fair and what the mortality rate will be as it hasn't really been tested before.

I don't think the government response is hysterical, it is a fairly serious threat if not contained properly IN AFRICA. But it is nowhere near us yet so no need to panic. (Of course we should be empathetic with people who are affected by this in other countries though and recognise the work of health workers out there).

The number of things that would need to happen before it became a real threat to the British public are numerous ie, a person would have to arrive here with ebola (which woudl most likely happen only if they travelled to rural Africa), they would need to infect other people and that infection would not be contained, those people woudl have to go on and infect more people etc. That does look fairly unlikely at this particular moment in time so DON'T PANIC.

A far more real threat is people with other infectious diseases panicing and presenting at GP surgeries and hospitals and comprimising the hygiene in those places and causing the spread of disease that DO thive in the UK, flu, norovirus etc and causing a strain on an already strained system.

Keep calm and carry on people.