No Ebola-infected people have entered Thailand
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Aug 19 -- Airports of Thailand (AoT) have assured that no Ebola-infected travelers have reached the country through its airports.

AoT President Makin Petplai said that Thailand's airports were gateways of travelers from other countries, and his agency was taking precautions as planned.

AOT workers have measured the temperatures of all passengers, especially those from Africa, which is the source of the Ebola virus disease (EVD).

Passengers whose body temperatures exceed 38 degrees Celsius must be monitored closely.

To effectively protect Thailand, AoT will train its staff how to respond to dangerous communicable diseases, disasters and acts of terrorism.

The training will occur quarterly so that airport staffs are knowledgeable and able to effectively watch out for people carrying risks.

The skills will add to the measure to require air passengers from 45 African countries to show their yellow fever prevention certificates.

Meanwhile, Thai Airways International introduced reporters to its measures to screen out the EVD at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The measures include aircraft cleaning and screening of passengers by ground staff. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-08-19

But how do they know for sure?

totster

That's a smack in the face waiting to happen.

Typically stupid comment.

hmmm ok. I feel better now.

But how do they know for sure?

totster

Exactly. With up to two weeks after infection before symptoms, nobody can possibly know.

Even more worrying for Thailand in particular as it is a sex tourism destination, men who have survived the disease can infect a woman for up to 50 days after their recovery. I read that on Wiki yesterday but can't find it now. What I did just read when looking for that, was this;

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days ^[6]"

Which essentially means the virus can enter the country by numerous undetectable means.

Keep up the warm and fuzzies AoT.

The pooyai has spoken. Would he take a 100k bet on that.

But how do they know, surely other arrivals had to have been running a fever, from a different cause ?

Did AoT pick those up ... if not, are their detection-systems working as claimed ?

That's a smack in the face waiting to happen.

Typically stupid comment.

Even if found in Thailand, it will be covered up, it would effect tourism.

But how do they know for sure?

totster

Exactly. With up to two weeks after infection before symptoms, nobody can possibly know.

Even more worrying for Thailand in particular as it is a sex tourism destination, men who have survived the disease can infect a woman for up to 50 days after their recovery. I read that on Wiki yesterday but can't find it now. What I did just read when looking for that, was this;

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days ^%5B6%5D"

Which essentially means the virus can enter the country by numerous undetectable means.

Keep up the warm and fuzzies AoT.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Edited August 19, 201411 yr by JohnThailandJohn

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

I think what worries me most, is the thought of it spreading to some sweaty overpopulated tropical country with poor medical-facilities but good connections by air, like Nigeria ?

Its spread to hubs like Bangkok would surely then be quite swift, and containing it would then become a nightmare, I suspect.

I think I'll continue to be concerned, until I hear that it's being controlled & eliminated, in Africa.

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

and yet in another post it says engineer and football players monitored for suspected Ebola ..

Will you people stop being so cynical, AOT said it OK so stop.........Oh F me........taxi

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

I won't call you over-cautious but will point out that you should better read facts, as well as my post as to not have irrational fears of something that like catching Ebola unless of course you in that area in Africa and a caregiver If you want to be paranoid then worry about being stuck by lightning as your odds are HUGELY more likely for this to happen given there has been around 650,000 deaths and over 8 million injuries resulting from lightning since Ebola was identified over 30 years ago.

The Flu causes more considerable deaths each year and much easier transmitted. (1/4 to 1/2 a million deaths each year .... multiple times this when there is a strong flu strain).

So, now I don't think you are being over-cautious, I think you are being irrational about something you don't understand and have not educated yourself about.

Why would an Ebola-infected person want to enter Thailand? For treatment?

So apparently the AOT have taken a blood sample from every arrival into Thailand and had it screened for Ebola. Well done AOT, who says Thailand can't be efficent when they really want to be.

There below is a link that might help to clarify the reality of the situation.

In truth there can be no statement that Thailand nor any other country is indeed 100% risk free from Ebola or the possibility of a case or cases of Ebola .

Prevention is indeed far better than cure, certainly I for one do not attach much credibility to statements made by the authorities here or elsewhere for that matter regarding Ebola.

Thailand has a track record of disguising the truth where matters that may affect its tourism sector apply.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

the statement that no ebola infected people have entered via the airports is astonishingly retarded and laughable or better said, cry-able. You would think the non medical people at aot would at least run it by the medical community for accuracy. it seems theres a lot of africans especially around tourist areas. should one of their freshly infected buddies fly in and have unprotected sex you could see the start of an epidemic

But how do they know for sure?

totster

Exactly. With up to two weeks after infection before symptoms, nobody can possibly know.

Even more worrying for Thailand in particular as it is a sex tourism destination, men who have survived the disease can infect a woman for up to 50 days after their recovery. I read that on Wiki yesterday but can't find it now. What I did just read when looking for that, was this;

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days ^%5B6%5D"

Which essentially means the virus can enter the country by numerous undetectable means.

Keep up the warm and fuzzies AoT.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Does that mean if I can find it, it is true?

From Wiki;

" Once human infection occurs, the disease may spread between people, as well. Male survivors may be able to transmit the disease via semen for nearly two months. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease

From the same article;

"Antibodies against Ebola Zaire and Reston viruses have been found in fruit bats in Bangladesh, thus identifying potential virus hosts and signs of the filoviruses in Asia.^[36]"

If the natural reservoir hosts exist in Asia, then the disease would potentially be here to stay if it arrived.

thailand needs to undersatnd,the worlld is a dangerous infectious place.i have a new born and i cant tell how many times i have had be rude,to stop strangers from ''blowing,kissing,touching etc'',i undersatnd thais love babys,we all do...but ask the parents first,and never ever try and p/u a strangers baby..i wont put my childs health at risk,even if it means bieing a ''prick''...now all the street food vendors,and scooter taxi drivers in my neibourhood think i am an <deleted>...fine with me....keep your hands and germs to your self....its 2014

Edited August 20, 201411 yr by mok199

See, you're not reading it right. Read it again, in a more "flexible" and face-saving context. If any ebola-infected travelers actually ARE found in Thailand, then they either will NOT have entered through the airport, or it's NOT ebola, or at least it WASN'T when they "entered", or.... <fill in the blank with the bureaucratic drivel of your choice> No matter what, it just won't have happened, even if it actually did. Get it?

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

I won't call you over-cautious but will point out that you should better read facts, as well as my post as to not have irrational fears of something that like catching Ebola unless of course you in that area in Africa and a caregiver If you want to be paranoid then worry about being stuck by lightning as your odds are HUGELY more likely for this to happen given there has been around 650,000 deaths and over 8 million injuries resulting from lightning since Ebola was identified over 30 years ago.

The Flu causes more considerable deaths each year and much easier transmitted. (1/4 to 1/2 a million deaths each year .... multiple times this when there is a strong flu strain).

So, now I don't think you are being over-cautious, I think you are being irrational about something you don't understand and have not educated yourself about.

haha you remind me of the people who say it's safe to fly then die in a crash..

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

I won't call you over-cautious but will point out that you should better read facts, as well as my post as to not have irrational fears of something that like catching Ebola unless of course you in that area in Africa and a caregiver If you want to be paranoid then worry about being stuck by lightning as your odds are HUGELY more likely for this to happen given there has been around 650,000 deaths and over 8 million injuries resulting from lightning since Ebola was identified over 30 years ago.

The Flu causes more considerable deaths each year and much easier transmitted. (1/4 to 1/2 a million deaths each year .... multiple times this when there is a strong flu strain).

So, now I don't think you are being over-cautious, I think you are being irrational about something you don't understand and have not educated yourself about.

You are correct if you assume that the disease have not mutated into an airborne one. Ask yourself they so many health workers that wore protective clothing have become ill. It is known that there are a number of Ebola variants, why cant it mutate into an airborne strain?

But how do they know for sure?

totster

Exactly. With up to two weeks after infection before symptoms, nobody can possibly know.

Even more worrying for Thailand in particular as it is a sex tourism destination, men who have survived the disease can infect a woman for up to 50 days after their recovery. I read that on Wiki yesterday but can't find it now. What I did just read when looking for that, was this;

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days ^%5B6%5D"

Which essentially means the virus can enter the country by numerous undetectable means.

Keep up the warm and fuzzies AoT.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

I think you need to read up a bit more on ebola.

"Transmission ... Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

One of the reasons that Ebola hasn't killed many people is that it kills most of the people it infects quick enough that it doesn't have a chance to get transmitted too widely.

The fact that this outbreak IS affecting people outside of the initial affected area is a major cause for concern. It has already spread to at least four Western African countries, and Saudi Arabia. It's just a matter of time before it gets into a major international hub in the middle east.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

I won't call you over-cautious but will point out that you should better read facts, as well as my post as to not have irrational fears of something that like catching Ebola unless of course you in that area in Africa and a caregiver If you want to be paranoid then worry about being stuck by lightning as your odds are HUGELY more likely for this to happen given there has been around 650,000 deaths and over 8 million injuries resulting from lightning since Ebola was identified over 30 years ago.

The Flu causes more considerable deaths each year and much easier transmitted. (1/4 to 1/2 a million deaths each year .... multiple times this when there is a strong flu strain).

So, now I don't think you are being over-cautious, I think you are being irrational about something you don't understand and have not educated yourself about.

You seem concerned about other major diseases like HIV/AIDS or influenza, others say that Malaria and Dengue Fever kill far more, that's all true but it's only looking at history.

I am more worried by what may happen in the near-term future ! The fact that it would be a first is irrelevant. The future is not necessarily the same as the past.

If Ebola does spread more-widely, so that current containment-methods become increasing less-effective, then it has the potential to kill a very large number of people world-wide very quickly. The death-rate and lack of successful treatments make this different from the flu, or HIV.

Medical-care in proper isolation-facilities can work for limited numbers of patients, but those facilities don't exist in the third-world, and might not be able to cope in developed countries either, if the disease spreads far beyond West Africa.

There have been cases in Spain & Saudi Arabia, isolated cases amongst people who have returned from the infected-countries so far, but how many more people have been infected in Nigeria ? There are people under-observation in Thailand and India. None of these are in Africa, FACT, and none of them have robust fully-funded medical-systems.

Worrying that it has, or may be about to have, moved beyond the point where simple containment can work, as it did with previous outbreaks in remote villages/populations, may turn out to be far-seeing rather than irrational. The past & other diseases may not be a guide to this new outbreak. That possibility exists, which is why the WHO is alarmed.

I hope not, I hope that I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it may already have moved beyond the locals & brave local/expat medical-workers in the initial three countries. In which case the situation could become very different to previous outbreaks.

But carry on calling me irrational or uneducated or paranoid, if that makes you feel safer. Or rely on assurances from the AoT.

Edited August 20, 201411 yr by Ricardo

What a pity that the Thai authorities have, more than once, demonstrated their loyalty to the cause, not just of no information, but of disinformation. The bird 'flu epidemic was a case in point, with fowl running loose in numerous back sois whilst the government continually denied the seriousness of the crisis. Then, I don't imagine there is any Thai industry at risk from their admitting to the risk of ebola ... but complacency no doubt still runs deep in Thai governing circles.

I read today that there are a couple of people being tested after entry at airports in Yangon and Ho Chi Minh so I think it is too optimistic to say that Thailand is or will be safe.

No person with Ebola has entered Thailand. Saying this has about the same credence as saying there's no corruption here either.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

Spain (the priest who died) & Saudi Arabia (a returned businessman) aren't outside Africa ?

Call me over-cautious, if you will.

I won't call you over-cautious but will point out that you should better read facts, as well as my post as to not have irrational fears of something that like catching Ebola unless of course you in that area in Africa and a caregiver If you want to be paranoid then worry about being stuck by lightning as your odds are HUGELY more likely for this to happen given there has been around 650,000 deaths and over 8 million injuries resulting from lightning since Ebola was identified over 30 years ago.

The Flu causes more considerable deaths each year and much easier transmitted. (1/4 to 1/2 a million deaths each year .... multiple times this when there is a strong flu strain).

So, now I don't think you are being over-cautious, I think you are being irrational about something you don't understand and have not educated yourself about.

You are correct if you assume that the disease have not mutated into an airborne one. Ask yourself they so many health workers that wore protective clothing have become ill. It is known that there are a number of Ebola variants, why cant it mutate into an airborne strain?

What if HIV mutated to an airborne virus?!?!?!??! OMG, run for the hills.

But how do they know for sure?

totster

Exactly. With up to two weeks after infection before symptoms, nobody can possibly know.

Even more worrying for Thailand in particular as it is a sex tourism destination, men who have survived the disease can infect a woman for up to 50 days after their recovery. I read that on Wiki yesterday but can't find it now. What I did just read when looking for that, was this;

"SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days ^%5B6%5D"

Which essentially means the virus can enter the country by numerous undetectable means.

Keep up the warm and fuzzies AoT.

You can't find it because it is not true. It can only be spread while person has symptoms. things like Fever, vomiting, diarrhea....

Ebola is one of the least concerns of all diseases that people outside an effected area should be worried about catching. Since it was identified, before HIV, there have been about 2,000 deaths compared with about 35 Million who have died as a results of AIDs and another 35 Million currently with HIV and around 2 Million new cases each year ... not to mention never been an outbreak resulting in Ebola deaths outside poor countries in Africa. Up to a half million people die each year from the flu.

I think you need to read up a bit more on ebola.

"Transmission ... Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

One of the reasons that Ebola hasn't killed many people is that it kills most of the people it infects quick enough that it doesn't have a chance to get transmitted too widely.

The fact that this outbreak IS affecting people outside of the initial affected area is a major cause for concern. It has already spread to at least four Western African countries, and Saudi Arabia. It's just a matter of time before it gets into a major international hub in the middle east.

The initial affected area was near the border of 4 countries wasn't it?

That's a smack in the face waiting to happen.

Typically stupid comment.

Even if found in Thailand, it will be covered up, it would effect tourism.

What tourism? I haven't seen any tourists for quite a while. Oh, wait, I did see some leaving the country.