To think that anyone coming to the UK from Africa should be tested for Ebola before they touch down on British soil?

[SuperWifeANDMum]

Just that really.

I really hope the government is doing all they can to prevent this disease coming to the uk.

super it might be better to search older ebola threads, where people with more expertise were able to properly explain the disease, what they can do at airports, how it spreads and so on.

The OP has a point - and it isn't racist!
If we had Ebola in this country and someone said we should test everyone leaving the UK I wouldn't object...
I agree it isn't practical -and using 'Africa' rather than affected and neighbouring areas was not the best way of putting it but in this age of global travel it is something that maybe we should think about a bit more...plan for.
I have the deepest sympathy for the people suffering and I do appreciate how lucky we are...
But having in incurable, contagious disease in more than one country isn't going to improve the situation for the ones suffering elsewhere...if anything it would divert resources from where they are needed more....
Containment does need to be a high priority.

Totally agree Beyond. The OP disappeared after being shouted at and the name calling.

A great thing for posters to have done would have been to take this perfect opportunity to educate the more ignorant of us - me included - about why this course of action isn't one that can be taken, and the wider issues involved. Without ranting.

It's a scary thing for a lot of people. Compassion and understanding would be appreciated.

Does anyone know if it would be possible for ebola to take up residence in a local rodents population (say rats) and then become endemic in a country where it wasn't previously? ?

I think the reason people feel very uncomfortable about these kind of threads is because the chance of an ebola outbreak that affects the UK is absolutely tiny. So tiny it really should be the last thing on our minds.

But in regions actually affected by it, it is terrifying. Parents and children dying. Families decimated - not because this is a super-virus but because they lack basic knowledge, hygiene and sanitation.

Those people would love to be in a situation where they know that this virus is thousands of miles away and that even in the remote chance of it coming here; we have fantastic free health care that will prevent it spreading and save lives.

These threads annoy some people because instead of saying 'fuck me, it's hideous that people have to live with this threat day by day because the health care and basic sanitation that we ALL take for granted just isn't there'. We have people not recognising just how bloody privileged we are just because of where we were born that we don't have to worry about a million things that people in these regions already deal with every day (clean water, food, somewhere to live, health care, security for our families and I could go on and on).

So we're worrying about ebola and how it may affect US. It's wrong. Donate, try to help the people who are actually at risk. And be grateful that we're not.

Op has a point.

Ebola at Heathrow. On the London underground. Person sneezing and coughing on a crowded tube train. Popping into Pret/m&s to use a toilet around lunchtime, sneeze and cough, perhaps be sick on the floor.

From a busy plane, to a busy airport, to another busy airport, to another town with a busy bus or underground network.

It is not just that it enters the UK, but if a person sneezes, coughs and splutters, or vomits, on a long haul flight, or in a very busy environment where people go in all directions, it will be difficult to fight a disease in so many different locations.

Suzanne, it's possible as it mutates rapidly, changing its structure and thus increasing the range of vectors used for transmission. Also, there's already a possible link to eating 'bush meat' especially primates (and now apparently bats) But I don't know if just having eg infected rats living in the vicinity would constitute a risk.
I'm pinning my hopes on a vaccine. However the rapid mutation rate would present a problem.

MrsBoldon, I still think many people are scared of the potential for spread and getting out of control world wide.

Feeling uncomforatble is one thing.

Attacking posters rather than explaining the issues is wrong in its own way.

"Does anyone know if it would be possible for ebola to take up residence in a local rodents population (say rats) and then become endemic in a country where it wasn't previously? "

The main host/reservoir species is thought to be the frut bat, but it's certainly found in other mammals (including rodents) already. How it is transmitted in animals between species is still being studied and is not fully known yet. Birds might carry it too.

so given that it's always been around and international travel has existed for some time the fact it has jumped to first world countries suggests that it won't, it requires third world conditions to be a problem??

It won't get out of control world-wide. It just won't. It is an extremely inefficient virus when handled with basic hygiene. The incubation period is short and people are obviously ill very quickly.

It's been recognised for nearly 40 years and has killed thousands of people. An extremely small number.

That is nothing compared to HIV, TB, leprosy, measles, alcohol, RTAs etc etc.

The chance of contracting ebola outside of affected regions is so, so small. The chance of it killing you is smaller. We've already seen how effective treatment is in countries with decent health care and basic hygiene.

It will not be a pandemic. You are not at risk. I work in MH so I understand that anxiety is often irrational but really, this should be last on the list for anyone outside of West Africa to be worrying about. It is a waste of energy and emotion.

The media did the same thing with SARS and bird flu. Honestly, don't buy into it.

The first I heard of ebola it was a disease bubbling up and dying down again in far flung rural areas of Central Africa. The difference now has been its arrival in areas with higher population density.

Are there specific charities to give to for this outbreak? It is clearly a containable disease given resources.

"We've already seen how effective treatment is in countries with decent health care and basic hygiene"

The effectiveness can be zero. The deaths in England and in Russia (lab accidents) show that.

Being worried about ebola is not daft. According to today's papers:

"Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, said that ministers had been shocked by a prediction from the US public health institute that 1.4 million people may be infected by the virus by January if it continues unchecked."

MrsBolden I would call that a pandemic, and it is often fatal even with the best treatment (and even the UK could not give thousands of people the best treatment if they all fell ill at the same time).

and security experts have said it should be treated the same way as a threat from a nuclear bomb.

It is good to have a discussion about the risks and preventative measures.

MrsBolden, , your post makes total sense to me!

Hear, hear, MrsBolden

Sorry, error in my previous post. Fatal in Russia (the patient in England recovered).

We have little idea what the human cost will actually look like if it continues to spread exponentially. And what happens if containment to currently affected countries fails.

I'm not trying to be unduly pessimistic for the sake of it. I just wanted to point out that current predictions have a shelf life. And to echo what the experts are saying - money and HCPs are needed urgently. If the rate cannot be abated in a month or two, it could all seem very different.

Malaria kills millions word wide and people with malaria enter the UK every day.
We are far, far more likely to have an influenza endemic in the UK than Ebola to cause a serious problem here.

See how the US dealt with the cases in Texas - there is no Ebola outbreak sweeping the States.

Ok. Even with effective treatment some people will die. I'm guessing the potential mortality rate is why so many people are so frightened of it.

I still don't think it has the potential to be a global pandemic. If even dozens of UK citizens are infected I will don my hard hat and prepare to be flamed quite happily!.

The WHO have to prepare for the worst which is usually not realised. I work for the NHS and remember all the preparations we had to do for a swine flu pandemic (which killed more people in the UK than ebola ever will) but still had little impact.

Same as (NHS employees) have be prepared for and have training about - heat-waves, severe cold, terrorist attacks and hospitals exploding.

What's truly terrifying are the numbers of trained medical staff and hospitals trying to contain it. There but for the grace of God and all that.

We should be pouring resources into the area right now and we are not. 2 yrs from now it could be a much nearer threat.

wrt to mortality you have to remember as well that the conditions in these countries are far from ideal.
there are no large modern hospitals and many of the patients are not as healthy as they could be due to difficulty in accessing even basic healthcare.

I still wonder if the Govt has done a proper risk assessment - are we better off focusing resources on containing this ebola outbreak in West Africa or bombing muslims in Syria?

pacific malaria isn't contagious...
At least not directly contagious (only with certain exceptions - eg mother to unborn child) -so it isn't comparable....
Ebola is transmitted by body fluids much more easily than HIV and HIV spread throughout the world...
(the only difference being with HIV you can transmit the disease without knowing- be a symptomless carrier...)

Let's not be hysterical but be realistic ...
The worst would be transfer (by an aid worker etc) to another densely populated poor area of the world - like the slums in Mumbai...