JSKS Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 richard51:Maybe the Urology consultant was just taking the pi55? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Sorry, I actually am in awe of clinicians/surgeons. They saved my life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 No. He got his first paper published through me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 well, hope not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 . I'm rather slow now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 [quote user="richard51"]I was a Clinical Scientist rather than a linguist. [/quote]I don't believe one has to be linguist to be fluent in one's native language[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 But it helps .I'm not pedantic though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Yup [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 We has (have?) exhausted the thread, I think, but my native tongue is far from Queens English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 [quote user="JSKS"]The 23% survival figure thing: This all stems from my saying that there were around 5000 cases. Someone got a bit pedantic and said 3800 (the current WHO estimate). This was then, through a loop of illogic, used as the two figures to determine the mortality (or survival) rate. The mortality rate for ebola is about 50%.[/quote]It was me that said 3,800 according to WHO as reported in The Guardian (who like The Daily Mail never lie [;-)] ). The date of that figure was 08/10/2014. However the article has just been updated this evening to 3,879.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/ebola-crisis-world-bank-president-jim-kim-failureAnd yes you are right, the figure only relates to Africa. Like you said probably the only figure that might be right is those that have died in Europe because it is in the news and difficult to hide. The rest I think is only a guesstimate.As to the mortality rate, well it could be anyones guess. Some say between 25 and 90%. Most newspapers say 50% and the BBC says 70%. I won't link to the sources as there are far to many, just Google "what is the mortality rate of ebola". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Goodness Quillan, just quoting figures, wiki-wise, really doesn't add anytink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 According to the news, and despite all previous announcements, it appears that checks will be made on passengers arriving in the UK from W Africa.....I'm glad someone took notice of my suggestions[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 More to do with PR than anything else. Very sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 [quote user="richard51"]Goodness Quillan, just quoting figures, wiki-wise, really doesn't add anytink.[/quote]Did I quote Wiki, I don't think so thats why I particularily said for people to Google. Bit late to be drinking isn't it? [;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Just talking from experience. And I am rather disappointed that you feel that my local dialect is that of the ranting of a drunken person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 JSKS, did I say that I was complacent? I said that I had spoken to medical friends a few weeks ago about this and it should not be hard to avoid this, in it's current form. My views on over population and the medical profession would take pages. I'm glad that David Attenborough is far more articulate than I about over population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Idun,Apologies if you thought I was accusing you of complacency. By complacent I meant those who have the power to control this thing, which, of course, means the developed nations' sending expertise to the affected areas to contain the outbreak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Quillen,I can cheat a little as I have access to sources such as medline and pubmed - that is to specialist medical research and publications. The best guess mortality is around 50% but whether this would apply in a sophisticated Western outbreak is speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I learnt yesterday that a lovely young lady from my archery club is going to Guinea on Sunday for an indefinite period to help with the Ebola outbreak. She has no direct link with Africa (she is Italian) but feels she must go and use her medical skills. She is braver than I and I sincerely hope that no harm comes to her and she returns safe and sound eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Kent II Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I see that the British government has given way and is going to introduce screening at Heathrow, Gatwick and (god knows why) St Pancras.A virologist from Nottingham University thinks that this will not achieve very much, but the redtops and bluetops are crowing triumphantly about this change in policy.When it comes to matters medical, I consider that the British press is the enemy of good sense. It caused great damage with its uncritical reporting of Andrew Wakefield's anti-MMR campaign and also with its insistence that British hospitals were filthy MRSA-ridden hazards. Journalists ignored Wakefield's prejudicial interests, and in the MRSA scandal were sending surreptitiously obtained samples to an untrained and unqualified "analyst" who had set up a laboratory in his garden shed.I do not dispute the awfulness of the ebola outbreak, nor would I minimise its potential threat, and I salute those people who are volunteering to go to west Africa to help fight it. So far, the number of people who have died is fewer than the number of people in the Albert Hall at the Last Night of the Proms. The battle with the disease will be won in Liberia, Sierra Leone and neighbouring countries, not in the arrivals hall at Gatwick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh4 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 quote user Clark Kent III see that the British government has given way and is going to introduce screening at Heathrow, Gatwick and (god knows why) St PancrasunquoteThere are no direct flights from the affected countries to the UK. There are however direct flights to Paris and Bruxelles - and both cities have Eurostar connections to St. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindal1000 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Be interesting to see whether we are screened when we go through on the tunnel next week then! I agree the whole screening thing is just to appease the press and People's fears and will make sod all difference to the chances of catching Ebola in the UK, although no doubt a few people will have to spend their holiday in a specially designed hospital wing, at the public expense. Interestingly, if you do isolate a couple of passengers and then 21 days later they go on to develop Ebola, do you then have to go back and trace all the other passengers and their contacts, or do you just quarantine the whole flight due to one suspect passenger with flu symptoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 As far as developing the disease in quarantine is concerned there would be no need to trace pre-quarantine contacts - the disease only becomes infectious once symptoms appear.Certainly, if a passenger was symptomatic on deplaning then that is a whole different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 From what I have read it would appear that from every person who has Ebola 2 others from contact are likely to get it so compared with other contact transmitted illnesses it does not spread that fast. I am confident that those with the skills to deal with this when they are in place will soon get on top of it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindal1000 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Interview with the chief medical officer at the Hospital for Tropical diseases in which he said that screening flights was a complete waste of time as there were no direct flights from the affected areas to the UK. Passengers would have to travel via Paris or Amsterdam so presumably to be affective it would mean screening everyone arriving from those destinations, causing substantial delays and disruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now