Is the UK doing enough about Ebola?

Watch
shooks
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Ebola screening is now going to be extended to Manchester and Birmingham airports.

"Passenger screening for Ebola is to be extended to Manchester and Birmingham airports, Public Health England says.

Staff at the two airports will begin checking passengers from at-risk countries after it is introduced at Gatwick and Eurostar next week.

Screening of arrivals from West Africa, where 4,500 have died in the outbreak, started at Heathrow on Tuesday."
from BBC.

Do you think that's enough, or should more be done to prevent the spread of Ebola into the UK?
0
reply
Kool_Panda
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
...

Does no one else think everyone is going over the top on Ebola panic?

You've been scared by the media to think that there's a large chance that you might get Ebola. It's the same reason half the people in the country now think there's a paedophile on every street corner and why people think they have a good chance of winning the lottery. Humans don't understand probability.
12
reply
an_atheist
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
what we should do is just leave everyone out there. IF you go out to help the infected voluntarily, you should be left there if and when you get infected, instead of brought back here, because all that does is increase the risk of the disease spreading to the rest of the world
2
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
What they should have done is closed the borders and airports of the countries effected as soon as it reached large areas of populaton.
But then flooded the areas involved with aid and all the help they could possibly have wanted. Basically the sort of help they are gearing up to now x 10, but then they would have been dealing with a couple of hundred instead of the several thousands we now see.
The biggest problem is that there is no interest, or money to be made from dead Africans.
1
reply
sdvds
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Ebola is not air-borne. keep clean, avoid bodily fluid contact with a person that shows symptoms of the disease and turn off the tv.
1
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Kool_Panda)
...

Does no one else think everyone is going over the top on Ebola panic?

You've been scared by the media to think that there's a large chance that you might get Ebola. It's the same reason half the people in the country now think there's a paedophile on every street corner and why people think they have a good chance of winning the lottery. Humans don't understand probability.
Totally agree. Ebola is a terrible disease, but it should be really easy to stop it spreading.
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
I completely agree that the risks of Ebola to developed countries have been grossly exaggerated but that doesn't change the fact that it's killing thousands in Africa. We have a humanitarian obligation to prevent this unnecessary suffering and death and we are not doing nearly enough to help.
3
reply
Eloades11
  • Study Helper
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by an_atheist)
what we should do is just leave everyone out there. IF you go out to help the infected voluntarily, you should be left there if and when you get infected, instead of brought back here, because all that does is increase the risk of the disease spreading to the rest of the world
First of all, you would stop everyone from being allowed into the country because an extremely minor proportion of infected individuals in a very limited number of countries has a disease which has been around for the last 40 years. The only thing that's changed is the huge media cries. Sure it's a slightly bigger outbreak than witnessed before, but it's way too excessive to refuse entry to airports.

Secondly, infected individuals are being quarantined and they note anyone who has come into contact with them for monitoring. This is a standard procedure which also means any one infected individual traveling into a completely susceptible country is even more unlikely.

To answer the OP, the UK is doing more than enough by helping the outbreak and cause out there in Africa. The UK should not be entitled to help because there isn't a single case in the UK. There is the accelerated procedure of rushing Ebola treatments and trial vaccines, which would usually take years to even test in animals and compile data. Screening procedures at airports seems excessive to me, but because the media has the public in a Ebola scare, they have to set up the screens. They probably won't catch anyone coming into the country with Ebola, so it will be a waste of time and expenses.

This picture in the spoiler sums up my thoughts:

Spoiler:
Show
Image
1
reply
Zen-Ali
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
for fack's sake i bet virtually nobody on tsr will know anybody personally that caught it

ebola pls
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by an_atheist)
what we should do is just leave everyone out there. IF you go out to help the infected voluntarily, you should be left there if and when you get infected, instead of brought back here, because all that does is increase the risk of the disease spreading to the rest of the world
Firstly bringing people with Ebola back here does not put anyone at risk provided the proper precautions are followed as they were with the Nurse brought back to the UK, the staff brought back to Germany and the doctors taken to Norway.

Secondly, the countries that this outbreak is gradually burning through have barely any doctors and really quite pathetic medical infrastructure. They cannot fight this on their own, so outside doctors are needed. People who go out their to help fight the disease should be guaranteed treatment in the even they themselves are infected. If you abando people there then the outbreak will only get worse and that is what will all but guarantee Ebola spreading.
2
reply
an_atheist
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Aj12)
Firstly bringing people with Ebola back here does not put anyone at risk provided the proper precautions are followed as they were with the Nurse brought back to the UK, the staff brought back to Germany and the doctors taken to Norway.

Secondly, the countries that this outbreak is gradually burning through have barely any doctors and really quite pathetic medical infrastructure. They cannot fight this on their own, so outside doctors are needed. People who go out their to help fight the disease should be guaranteed treatment in the even they themselves are infected. If you abando people there then the outbreak will only get worse and that is what will all but guarantee Ebola spreading.
How will the outbreak get worse if all infected individuals are in one, albeit large, area? Yes there is poor medical infrastructure over their, but you also have think in a pragmatic way about this. If the necessary precautions are not taken, thenebola will spread throughout the world.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Eloades11)
This picture in the spoiler sums up my thoughts:

Spoiler:
Show
Image
What I don't like about this sort of argument is two fold: first, it's an appeal to relative privation, which is no argument at all; secondly, and more significantly, while it is a minimal threat if dealt with properly, an epidemic would be HIGHLY deadly, with current mortality rates in West Africa just a gnat's wing under 50% officially it's not something you walk away from particularly easily. And while we may have the capabilities in place to deal with Ebola and other highly infectious diseases, to my knowledge we don't have the resources available to handle a major outbreak, we would be little better than West Africa ultimately. Then when you throw in just how panicked some people would get and it would be a REALLY rather bad thing.

Also, the distinct difference between Ebola and the things given are that those things are lifestyle choices and largely under the control of the individual, Ebola isn't.

More annoying though are the ones that say "well, this other disease kills this many more people per year" which is dangerous logic. That logic would get us stuck only working on the likes of cancer, flu and malaria for cure research, and it again fails to consider the potential of Ebola. Given the worst case estimates for infection rate and current mortality rates, it can quickly rise up the list.
0
reply
Neverdie
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Kool_Panda)
...

Does no one else think everyone is going over the top on Ebola panic?

You've been scared by the media to think that there's a large chance that you might get Ebola. It's the same reason half the people in the country now think there's a paedophile on every street corner and why people think they have a good chance of winning the lottery. Humans don't understand probability.
I think it's more manipulating people's curiosity and thirst for knowledge. They would rather fuss over something they have no control over than just not watch the news and be unaffected and happy.

I mean look at the news forum here, it's all about faux-Islam and terrorism, but how many people have encountered terrorism? Could be zero.

The one I like is getting people who live in villages or obscure places scared they're going to be victim of a terrorist attack, such is the power of knowing what's happening in London when you live hundreds of miles away in a city no one's ever heard of.

No, no, the best one was getting a 70% swing in the AV vote by putting up posters telling people that writing '1' instead of 'X' in a box when they vote would literally kill babies.
0
reply
MancStudent098
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
More annoying though are the ones that say "well, this other disease kills this many more people per year" which is dangerous logic. That logic would get us stuck only working on the likes of cancer, flu and malaria for cure research, and it again fails to consider the potential of Ebola. Given the worst case estimates for infection rate and current mortality rates, it can quickly rise up the list.
The overall level of deaths is a measure, not just of how dangerous it is once you have it, but how contagious it is. Answer so far, not particularly. Even less so when it gets to a developed country and the health services jump on it.

Don't get me wrong we should definitely try to snuff it out at source, no-one wants another nasty disease swimming around in general circulation. But what we are now doing is perfectly adequate in terms of our own controls. We could probably do more on the ground in WA, but I suspect our ultimate ability to deal with it will depend on a working vaccine, rather than pounds spent or personnel numbers on the ground.
0
reply
Eloades11
  • Study Helper
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What I don't like about this sort of argument is two fold: first, it's an appeal to relative privation, which is no argument at all; secondly, and more significantly, while it is a minimal threat if dealt with properly, an epidemic would be HIGHLY deadly, with current mortality rates in West Africa just a gnat's wing under 50% officially it's not something you walk away from particularly easily. And while we may have the capabilities in place to deal with Ebola and other highly infectious diseases, to my knowledge we don't have the resources available to handle a major outbreak, we would be little better than West Africa ultimately. Then when you throw in just how panicked some people would get and it would be a REALLY rather bad thing.

Also, the distinct difference between Ebola and the things given are that those things are lifestyle choices and largely under the control of the individual, Ebola isn't.

More annoying though are the ones that say "well, this other disease kills this many more people per year" which is dangerous logic. That logic would get us stuck only working on the likes of cancer, flu and malaria for cure research, and it again fails to consider the potential of Ebola. Given the worst case estimates for infection rate and current mortality rates, it can quickly rise up the list.
I think you need to realise that there will not be an epidemic, and especially not one in the UK. 50% in retrospect is quite low for a disease as lethal as Ebola with no recognised treatments or vaccines, so that in itself is quite an achievement. It is true that once you catch it, you're in a pickle. Enough measures are in place already to prevent further outbreaks.

Considering if we compare Ebola with multi drug resistant bacterial pathogens, those people are left in the hospital with the prospect of giving it to other patients. Ebola patients as far as I'm aware are being isolated and quarantined to prevent the virus transferring to another host. While certain resistant bacterial pathogens will not present the high mortality rates of Ebola, there will be little we can do for those people once the bacteria becomes resistant to all antibiotics. In my opinion, we should be treating drug-resistant bacterial infections the same way as Ebola, there will be a big outbreak if the bacteria is allowed to spread and evolve. Such strains include MRSA and Gonorrhea.

I on no hand suggested we should ignore diseases, but see that you're only branding certain types of personalities. I'm simply saying people should be more worried about more relevant killers out there, rather than a minor outbreak in a small region in Africa.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Eloades11)
I think you need to realise that there will not be an epidemic, and especially not one in the UK. 50% in retrospect is quite low for a disease as lethal as Ebola with no recognised treatments or vaccines, so that in itself is quite an achievement. It is true that once you catch it, you're in a pickle. Enough measures are in place already to prevent further outbreaks.
I'm not going to argue with the majority of the post given I'm in agreement, I am well aware that the chances of there being an epidemic in the developed world is so improbable it's barely worth considering, but barely worth considering doesn't mean not to be considered, and at least for the sake of hypothetical argument the "barely worth considering" are the funnest to consider
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by an_atheist)
How will the outbreak get worse if all infected individuals are in one, albeit large, area? Yes there is poor medical infrastructure over their, but you also have think in a pragmatic way about this. If the necessary precautions are not taken, thenebola will spread throughout the world.
Perhaps because you can't just seal off an area like that? It does not work, you would just cause the amount of cases to spike and eventually people would trickle out and you'd see cases elsewhere anyway.

The only way to stop Ebola spreading is to treat it at source, the best way to do this is to flood the region with targeted aid, doctors and medical supplies. Not building a wall around West Africa hoping everyone inside dies and the disease stops. If we were truly pragmatic we would have done more when this started, we would have stopped the outbreak by now.
0
reply
bonda19811
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
It should be easy to stop the spread of Ebola into and within countries relatively far from Central Africa, but within the heavily affected areas stopping this spread is much more difficult due to things like less developed infrastructure, public distrust of government bodies (e.g. Liberia) and relatively unmonitored and uncontrolled travel patterns of animals suspected to host the disease (e.g. types of fruit bats).

Additionally, although Ebola is generally considered to be pretty difficult to transmit (requiring direct contact with infected bodily fluids) that doesn't seem to prevent it from infecting thousands of people. Plus, given that it has a fatality rate ranging from 50-88%, I think that the UK should be providing more "on the ground" assistance to medical, research and army units. I just think we've got to be a little less selfish when it comes to crap like this...
1
reply
borysek01
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
Ebola does not spread quickly in countries such as the UK. As long as we're hygienic, wash our hands, stay away from people that show symptoms etc - we are not under risk. Everything is over exaggerated too, media are just using this to make cash, and we're being brainwashed.
0
reply
White.R3sistance
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
4,500 people isn't many. The way the media goes on about it you would think millions have died. I mean really what you look at the size of Africa 4,500 isn't anything to worry about.When it gets to hundreds of thousands we should worry.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (110)
5.01%
Uncertainty around my education (330)
15.02%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (236)
10.74%
Lack of purpose or motivation (305)
13.88%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (101)
4.6%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (126)
5.74%
Loneliness (190)
8.65%
Financial worries (85)
3.87%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (93)
4.23%
Exposure to negative news/social media (103)
4.69%
Lack of real life entertainment (118)
5.37%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (192)
8.74%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (208)
9.47%

Watched Threads

View All