Passengers are being tested for Ebola in Hong Kong and the UK

Passengers are being tested for Ebola in Hong Kong and the UK

Fears over West Africa’s Ebola outbreak have gone global following the death of a man in Lagos last week, as health authorities in Hong Kong and Birmingham, England, have quarantined passengers showing possible symptoms of the disease.

In Hong Kong, the state-run China Daily reported that a woman who recently returned from Africa with “symptoms similar to the Ebola virus”—which at the early stages include headache, fever, and stomach pain—is in a hospital isolation ward while she undergoes testing. Symptoms can take up to three weeks to materialize; the virus has a mortality rate of up to 90%.

In Birmingham, a man who arrived on a flight from Nigeria has also been taken to a hospital isolation unit after complaining of “feeling feverish.” The UK government is holding an emergency meeting on how to address the “new and emerging threat” of Ebola later today.

This story just seems to get worse by the second.

Hope it's all just an abundance of caution.

a reply to: loam

Caution/Testing/Perspective are all good.

*

I'm glad HK and the UK are stomping on this ASAP.

I've been here since '09. I remember the Swine Flu/Pig AIDS failfest. 300 odd deaths, TOTAL CHAOS from the blogosphere.

There were more threads on Swine Flu in conspiracy forums than actual casualties.

a reply to: HiAliens

Can't say I disagree.

Hope it pans out the same way. More threads than victims.

a reply to: loam

I just hope the are testing all passengers who come from those areas which have been affected in Africa!

IMO there shouldn't be any more flights to those areas until the threat has diminished completely.

a reply to: loam

To be perfectly honest I imagine should they come across anybody entering the United Kingdom or any other nation for that matter that is testing for Ebola, and the test proves positive then unfortunately the infected people or person should be returned to their place of origin.

If this virus was ever to gain a foothold in a small nation with a large enough population density it could quite possibly be an end of days scenario for rather a large percentage of said population.

You have to be cruel to be kind regarding this particular viral monstrosity considering the mortality rate. And the only effective way we have of containing such a virus is by isolating the infected and letting the virus run its course short of a vaccine or antidote being invented/released.

My understanding of Ebola was that despite being a highly lethal pathogen, it wasn't that dangerous because to catch it you had to be in direct contact with infected blood or bodily fluids?

The worrying thing about this Africa outbreak is it looks like too many cases, which, is a worry if it is now transmittable more easily.

a reply to: Painterz

Infected people sneezing or coughing is a factor with regards to the transmission of the virus via bodily fluid or blood. Look at it this way, here in the UK we can't even seem to prevent MRSA from doing the rounds in our hospitals and other medical facilities. What chance do we have of containing an Ebola outbreak? There is also the fact that a large proportion of our population use public transport everyday of there lives, direct contact via bodily fluid is going to be a issue there should some poor infected soul use the subway or a bus.

The screening of passengers seems rather redundant after they have entered another nation. A better solution may be to screen for the virus before boarding any flight to another area.

I'm confused..I thought there was no definitive test for Ebola until the person is symptomatic - in which case they are already contagious.

It's a nice dog and pony show but restricting travel from the affected areas would be more encouraging

a reply to: kosmicjack

Testing

Ebola virus infections can be diagnosed definitively in a laboratory through several types of tests:

antibody-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
antigen detection tests
serum neutralization test
reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay
electron microscopy
virus isolation by cell culture.

Samples from patients are an extreme biohazard risk; testing should be conducted under maximum biological containment conditions.

Not sure how long these take. Looking that up...

a reply to: andy06shake

"A better solution may be to screen for the virus before boarding any flight to another area."

The best solution would be to cancel any and all air traffic into and out of the affected countries until such time as the areas are declared disease free.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: andy06shake

"A better solution may be to screen for the virus before boarding any flight to another area."

The best solution would be to cancel any and all air traffic into and out of the affected countries until such time as the areas are declared disease free.

But that would hurt airline profits, and thus the shareholders and bankers! Better to keep the flights going and let others deal with the consequences.

Profit trumps logic every time.

a reply to: Britguy

Only too true.

That guy in Birmingham has run off from the hospital police cant find him

a reply to: BoovDawg

I think the papers are saying that the person in question tested negative for Ebola then again that's not to say that they could not be a carrier of the virus.

TPTB are also now claiming that you cannot catch said virus via others coughing or sneezing, that being said i would take that statement with a pinch of salt considering ingestion/contact with contaminated blood and/or sputum is exactly the medium this particular virus uses to move from host to host.

a reply to: loam

Worse?

I thinking testing actually a good thing!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: loam

To be perfectly honest I imagine should they come across anybody entering the United Kingdom or any other nation for that matter that is testing for Ebola, and the test proves positive then unfortunately the infected people or person should be returned to their place of origin.

If this virus was ever to gain a foothold in a small nation with a large enough population density it could quite possibly be an end of days scenario for rather a large percentage of said population.

You have to be cruel to be kind regarding this particular viral monstrosity considering the mortality rate. And the only effective way we have of containing such a virus is by isolating the infected and letting the virus run its course short of a vaccine or antidote being invented/released.

Good luck finding a air carrier that will take them!

a reply to: Britguy

With all our technology and conferencing abilities it seems to me that we don't actually need to be doing the foreign country travel nearly so much - except for the perks of course.

I see from another member that the guy has legged it out of hospital - so what did he actually have to fear?

a reply to: crazyewok

That's a very good point and another reason why screening should be done prior to departure.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Running pretty stupid.

In a 21st century well equipped western hospital you chances of survival go up.

Marburg Ebola sister with does the same thing and has a similar mortality rate of up to 90% can go down to 30% or 20% with proper healthcare.

The tricks keeping you alive long enough for your immune system to kick in and clear the virus.

So keeping there patient hydrated, blood pressure up and replacing failing organs (Normal kidneys) with machines like dialysis . Things impossible to do in Africa.

Ironical the dramatic bleeding is only present in (If i remember) 20% of Ebola cases. Of course those 20% are normally done for due to collapse of the circulatory system. But most deaths from Ebola are from organ failure, if you can compensate for that then the patient could very well pull through.


Of course if you in the USA and have to pay for your own healthcare your better off dying cause the bill you will get when you come out will the astronomical