to think that testing for EBOLA should be done before entering this country!?

[SuggestmeaUsername]

I think that rather than/as well as testing for EBOLA when passengers arrive in the UK, we should be testing before they even get on the plane in the country of origin for those travelling from Sierra Leonne etc. In fact I would prefer we didnt actually let anyone from the main EBOLA hit countries come to this country. any British people there coming back should go into Quarantine for a period of time. What does everyone else think?

I was referring to everyone, not just people entering the country. And it's not really a 'them and us' situation with regards to people entering, not an 'us against the 'Africans'' situation. It's anyone who has been potentially exposed, and is showing symptoms. Anyone. How on earth can someone be effectively treated, for whatever is causing the symptoms - and it's virtually a given atm that it's not Ebola, if you can't test to see what they're suffering from.

You: I'm not talking about containing people, I'm just talking about compulsory quarantine. (Please do tell us the difference?) I'm not talking about forced testing, I'm just saying they wont be allowed in, after paying for fares/visas etc, without testing (ditto).....come on! own your opinions.

The threat you imagine is not there. You haven't bothered to learn the basic facts about ebola before pontificating on laws and arguing for preventing the freedom and movement of vast numbers of people. How arrogant and self-absorbed are you?

I've got to say, I can't see the difference between forced quarantine, and containment.

You can't test until the subject is symptomatic. You can't just set up testing at points of entry, it can't work, you'd end up with thousands upon thousands of people being detained, waiting around until they're (possibly) sick enough for a viral load to show up in testing

Not to mention that to test (test, not screen) takes a proper test in a BL4 lab, plus the current protocol after one negative (from a feverish contact) is a further test after a further 48 hours, as all clear is only given after two tests.

You have such an aggressive attitude grocklebox. am here to discuss concerns and opinions and if my opinion is not correct, that is fine because we are hear to learn from our discussions. However, you take such an aggressive stance and hurl insults which is not very pleasant.

You say the threat is not there. great, I dont need to worry then. no need to control it. thanks for your expertise and help in this matter

Reading the posts up thread, the UN have developed a way to test for Ebola in people who have already had it for a few days. (It is a test they developed and had been used as a way to test animals, so was not immediately available for humans at the onset of this latest outbreak). Turnaround is half an hour - 2 hours (not counting courier time of samples to the testing equipment, which is being sent to relevant regions.)

Still, what would you suggest, that anyone travelling to the UK from an Ebola hit region should be in isolation for several days and then be treated? It isn't going to happen. What is the point, they could just get a flight to somewhere else and then fly here from someone without Ebola unchecked!

You seem to have completely missed the point of why it is so important to help get Ebola contained and isolated. It's not a matter of whether it comes to the UK, more when. It seems to have escaped your notice that we have a global economy. Things and people travel all over the world, back and forth constantly. There is no opt out. Ebola will travel around too. It's pretty amazing that it hasn't already spread far more.

*Important to get Ebola contained so that it does not go past the point of it never being possible to eradicate it. I didn't mean to imply that the reason was to stop it coming to the UK!

I have an aggressive attitude? You want to quarantine people, you want to do medical procedures on unwilling subjects, you want to suspend immigration or holidays from entire countries...and I have an aggressive attitude?

What the fucking fuck are you talking about?

just to be clear...advocating facist policies for hundreds of thousands of foreigners people makes one a lovely concerned person, and pointing out said facistic tendencies makes one an aggressive nutball?
Only on mumsnet.

My original post was in response to listening to the news informing that testing was going to be done at UK airports for those travelling from Ebola hit regions. My concern was that this would not help the situation because if someone traveling to the UK had EBOLA, there would be the risk of infecting someone else on the plane or at the airport. so I posed the question would it be better to test at the point of origin. I know its a simplistic question but sometimes they are the best questions to ask to get the answers you want. Ideally, I wish it was possible to contain this through border control but I guess it is not.

However, if people refuse testing, I think it would be reasonable to refuse them entry into the UK. The disease needs to be kept under control

What else should we test people for? TB? Hep C? HIV? How do we do that?

I had very raised temperature and was shaking and sweating a couple of months ago while arriving at Gatwick from Spain which could not only be a gateway from West Africa, but where I came into daily contact with West African beach sellers.

I felt like death. It was tonsillitis which I'm sure it might kill you if you didn't have the access to antibiotics I had but I guess wasn't life-threatening to others.

We could put everyone with the symptoms I had in quarantine. Or, as you seem to be suggesting, we could send them back.

Is that really what you're saying?

YeGodsAndLittleFishes do you have a link for that? Genuine question as I'd like to know more (and google isn't really helping), not least as I thought that it took at least two tests 48 hours apart to be sure of the result (allowing for variations in rise of viral load, though one theory on this outbreak is that viral load rises quite rapidly, hence greater spread).

"However, if people refuse testing, I think it would be reasonable to refuse them entry into the UK."

Then we would need (large) airside hospital facilities. For you just cannot put someone you are denying entry, on grounds of deadly next infectious disease, back on a plane.

so what do you all suggest we do?

Auntie I am working on hearsay from an indirect contact in UN, so I don't have a link... (though everything the UN does is pretty public, so will see if I can rootle one up over the weekend.) In other words, I could be wrong and it could well be that I misunderstood and 2 tests are needed 48 hours apart as you say. That would still be an improvement on what has been available up until recently, but far from ideal. Not enough places to keep people in isolation for all that time, either.

That would be great news if there is an improvement on testing. Fingers crossed on that

I want to know why you are so worked about ebola (death count of around

When you say, "refuse them entry to the UK" you are aware that "them" may well be British citizens? Are you also aware that there are no direct flights to the UK from the worst affected areas; they must fly via other countries. This would involve testing everyone coming from, oh, Paris. That is testing, not just screening.

Both denying entry to British citizens and denying entry to EU citizens would be against the law.

What needs to be done is:
Give the communities being affected clean water, disposible equpment such as personal protective suits, syringes (or reusable ones which must be boiled after every single use it is this which spreads Ebola the most) and training and a buddy system to ensure they are removed and disposed of or decontaminated correctly every time;
ability to bury people away from waterways and in a way that stops infection spreading; treatment centres where people who have Ebola can be treated in isolation;
Each state needs to find places for people to be kept in isolation alone (not together!) while getting food and other essentials without contact but to continue care. With overcrowding, sending them home is going to make the problem much worse. What do they do about work and pay while off work?;
Develop an effective vaccine, test and affordable treatment;

Also the testing involves blood samples. Getting those blood samples (using clean needles) and packaging it up, sending it, storing it, unpacking it and testing it then disposing of it are all real concerns in dealing with the outbreak. Lots of room for human error.

Regarding the spread of TB (and worse, the resistant form) my husband was very stringently tested for that years ago when he first received his Marriage Visa to come to UK. The chest Xrays and blood/sputum tests had to be done in an authorised WHO clinic in Ivory Coast, and the certificate lasted only 6 months. As the Visa was delayed, he had to go through the tests again, as they are so strict (and rightly so)

I've had some more thoughts about measures that might curtail the spread of Ebola:-

Maybe all medical staff, nurses, health workers in the Ebola field clinics should be required to undergo a period of quarantine (say 4 weeks) to ensure they are not hatching the virus. Then they could be free to travel.It seems two such nurses came to Europe already infected by their patients.

And maybe all potential travellers from the affected countries should have to obtain a certificate to say they are not infected (after a blood test or some such) like my husband had to get for his Visa. Even UK nationals could be asked to get this done before travel. It's an emergency situation and calls for stringent safeguards, until this is brought under control.

Obviously some would slip through the net or obtain false documents, but it would provide some safeguard.

Blood tests only work on those already showing symptoms. The infective viral dose is only 1-10 particles, so you're asking for a test that can show up that amour of viral load in the body. It's not going to happen, even the quickest tests can only work once your body has started to mount an immune response, so the antibodies can be seen.

I'll make it simple. You CANNOT accurately test BEFORE the subject is showing symptoms. The initial symptoms are indicative of 100's of different diseases, it's am impossible task.

Just less riskier to makes sure everyone knows not to travel if they have symptoms and self impose isolation if they have, or have been in contact with someone with Ebola.

Grocklebox Ebola is in the news day and night constantly. blame the media if you think it is hysteria.

What I say is not rubbish. I put forward something for discussion and many people have come back with sensible calm answers, mainly reasons why we cant control it in the way i have suggested, which is fine. I am happy to be corrected with sensible calm reasoning rather than in the agressive manner you conduct yourself in. I suggest you go for anger management classes

The figures I found for TB (2012) show that the number of cases is falling globally (did not specify rise of resistant form within that headline), with 8.6m cases lading to 0.94m deaths.

If there were 8.6m Ebola cases, there would be over 6m deaths expected. And that us why there is such an impetus to get its spread controlled, rather than letting it continue to rise exponentially.