Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Ebola medics ?

Recommended Posts

Why are British aid nurses, that contract ebola in W/Africa, brought back to the UK?  presumably they are already in a purpose built environment for treatment?  Are they saying that they require first class treatment in the UK; in which case, that implies that the treatment centres in Africa are second class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What!?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Obs although when you see some of the hospitals over there they certainly a patch on what we have over here.   With so many to treat and look over there too maybe bringing ours back here with more one to one care gives them a better chance of surviving.  No idea though really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are focused treatment medical centres with specially trained staff (mainly military); move suspect cases and you move the virus, increasing the risk of spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Obs. Why bring the virus over here when they can be cared for there. If the facilities over there are not good enough for British/foreign medics then they couldn't be for the indigenous population - which would mean that the whole aid program is a sham - which couldn't be the case could it?

 

I can't see why we are sending British medics in the first place. From what I've read they only go for a four week stint - so every batch of 'monthly medics' is creating a really strong risk of bringing the virus over here.

 

The safest solution for us and the rest of the world would be for all countries to give money to Israel and the US to send their medics. In their populations are many Ashkenazi Jews who due to having a specific genetic defect do not get Ebola (or HIV for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so every batch of 'monthly medics' is creating a really strong risk of bringing the virus over here.

conspiracy theory 1: government plot to get the disease over here and kill off some of the population and thus save on pensions in the future.

 

Conspiracy theory 2 : plot to get the disease over here and thus frighten off the immigrants from wanting to come to this country either legally or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point Obs. Why bring the virus over here when they can be cared for there. If the facilities over there are not good enough for British/foreign medics then they couldn't be for the indigenous population - which would mean that the whole aid program is a sham - which couldn't be the case could it?

 

I can't see why we are sending British medics in the first place. From what I've read they only go for a four week stint - so every batch of 'monthly medics' is creating a really strong risk of bringing the virus over here.

 

The safest solution for us and the rest of the world would be for all countries to give money to Israel and the US to send their medics. In their populations are many Ashkenazi Jews who due to having a specific genetic defect do not get Ebola (or HIV for that matter).

Where did you read that Ashkenazi Jews were immune to Ebola?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, it doesn't provide immunity to ebola and not all Ashkenazi Jews carry it. It is most prevalent in Scandinavians and Russians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly PJ, I said 'many' not 'all' Ashkenazi Jews carry the mutant gene CCR5-delta 32.

 

Also, yes it is more prevalent in Scandinavians and Russians, some scientific research papers quote this as much as 30%. BUT, I have noted that some researchers whilst giving these figures do not actually break down the figures with regard to ancestral ethnicity, for example they do not state how many of these people are actually Ashkenazi.(many Ashkenazi are in fact of Russian 'nationality' or have ancestors who were of 'Russian nationality'.

 

Ashkenazi, are not DNA wise fully Jewish. Their DNA origin is believed to have been from alliances with Jewish men and European women. Traditionally 'Jewish' decent follows a maternal line, in that if your father is Jewish but mother is not you are not 'Jewish' by birth. The original Ashkenazi offspring would have 'converted' to Judaism.

 

The CCR5-delta32 mutation is believed to have emerged at the time of the Plagues in Europe (which are now believed to have been outbreaks of haemorrhagic fever(similar to Ebola) That is why CCR5-delta32 offers resistance to.... Ebola.

 

10% of Europeans are believed to have the mutation. However, whilst one might get some protection against Aids or Ebola by inheriting the CCR5-delta32 from one parent for full resistance one would have to inherit the mutation from both parents.

The reason many Ashkenazi Jews, (more so than other European carriers of the gene) would be more protected would be because once they had converted to Judaism they would have followed the Jewish tradition of marrying within the faith and their offspring are more likely to have inherited the gene from both parents.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is no evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are any more immune to ebola than any Northern European.  Nor are they immune from AIDS.  I admire your cut and pasting but I read it all and there really is no reason to think that sending Jews to fight ebola would save us money on protective equipment as they are immune to it.  Its simply not true.  If this was the magical solution you purport don't you think W.H.O. may have thought of using it?  Some of those people know rather a lot about medical issues, even without googling.  The KKK in America put out all kinds of stuff about this including that they invented AIDS as a biological weapon.    If you were offered a syringe just used by a gay intravenous drug addict who practiced unsafe sex would you use it if the doctor told you he was an Ashkenazi Jew?  Thought not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really interesting excursion indeed; but - does it mean that such immunity would prevent spread?  Most pathogens are carried through bad hygiene  practises, so immunity doesn't necessarily reduce transmission risk. However, it does sound like an interesting argument in favour of eugenics !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been no cases at all diagnosed in the Inuit population, perhaps they too are immune?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to topic, the health workers coming back here for specialist treatment probably deserve it, they do after all, put themselves at risk to save the lives of countless people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite the point; people movement risks virus movement. The number one rule in such cases is containment and isolation and that means everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I believe that precautions are taken?  How many returning health workers have spread the virus in the UK?  Wasn't long ago that some scaremongerers were trying to convince people to panic as the virus would be flooding into the country under trucks.  Never happened either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of things "never happen" precisely because precautions are taken. At least one case has occurred of health workers returning to the UK with ebola; passing through airports en route; as for your other dose of complacency; one case travelled to Mali; fortunately no reports of further spread to date - however more luck than judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you after a degree in being thick?  The black death started in Asia and spread throughout Europe, and that was before the advent of cheap airline flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observer,  as I am sure you are worried for the people of Mali I hope this eases your mind,  On January 18 Mali was declared Ebola-free after 42 days with no new cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the point being made alas. Mali is just one of the Countries along the illegal route to Europe from Africa; as pathogens travel with people , migration (especially illegal migration), facilitates global spread - a fairly logical deduction even for you.  Distance is meaningless in this context as some sort of comfort zone, as illegals are arriving in Europe by the day. Illegals, by defininition, will be averse to reporting illness to authorities, or being tracked by authorities, thus facilitating an exponential spread. Which brings us back to the first rule in countering epidemics - containment and isolation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you after a degree in being thick?  The black death started in Asia and spread throughout Europe, and that was before the advent of cheap airline flights.

I think you'll find that the jury is out on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the medical thinking on Ebola is that it will mutate to become less of a threat. No virus is going to survive if it kills all its hosts. We live in hope 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...