Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Interested in garnering thoughts rather than flak.
1. it can be contained and we know enough about it to avoid spreading the virus to new areas.
2. countries like the uk, spain and the us have the resources and expertise to treat patients. everyone should be able to get that level of care but unfortunately that's not possible and governments have to consider their duties towards their own citizens.
3. health workers should be given a certain level of guarantee that they'll be looked after if they become ill when working in dangerous regions like west africa. otherwise you would get fewer doctors and nurses willing to risk working in areas affected by ebola. places like liberia and sierra leone have a shockingly low ratio of doctors per 1000 people. in liberia, there is about 1 doctor per 30,000 people.
4. although there's a low mortality rate if they get treatment quickly, there is still a possibility that the patients will die. i think it's better to bring people home so that their families can at least see them and know they're safe and being looked after.
Its number '2' I was thinking about in particular, I think.
I've heard that there is a problem due to confidence being lost in non-traditional care advice, due to high mortality rate, unfortunately this loss in confidence also results in abandoning some effectice infection control with those close to the sufferers getting infected more, as a consequence.
I was wondering whether having a facility IN west africa (small possibly due to budget) that could have success in individual sufferers, might have a bigger effect in at least convincing people of some of the practices to minimise passing on the infection from those suffering it. (I am of course under an (possibly false) impression that the treatment that is efficacious is stuff like correct hydration etc, not astronomically expensive....which means it could be done in West Africa (admitedly not for all).....I may be mistaken though))
What do Africans in infected areas think of 'flying people out'?
Does it emphasise to them,more, that there is little that can be done in Africa?
Or is it on no or little consequence?
I don't know, I was just wondering.
example, of the correct care needed, IN west Africa, even if it is only an example, and can only treat a few, then it will help with the reputation of good infection reduction advise
but even getting a clean drip is difficult in many of the badly affected areas. it is a real tragedy and goes to show how important having adequate basic primary health care and education is. but after what's happened in the recent past, i guess it's understandable that there's a high level of distrust of the government and western aid workers. on most estimates it's going to be at least 6 months before the outbreak is brought under control. the economic impact alone will be devastating :(
with about 25,000 cases
There was some people with cholera in India in an area where I went, felt shitty that i felt glad i'd had the jabs. There was innoculation going on, but quite a few people avoided being innoculated, because they were suspicious of a) what it was and what it did and b) it wouldn't make any difference anyway, it wasn't human action that would determine their fate :(
thats maybe why there needs to be a place that makes a start, with clean drips, proper hydration etc, in Africa, so that its success (even if not available to poor africans) can at least more successfully be believed when it gives out advice on (no-cost) infection spread reduction practices.
a western aider, who was infected, being treated successfully within Africa, would be the best propaganda for the methods. (Im not suggesting that this would be involuntary or anything)
Like I say, hopefully this is a priority, its just that its not mentioned in the reporting of ebola, when they mention westerners being flown back.