No Ebola-infected people have entered Thailand

[Ricardo]

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?

Not really, Guinea-Conackry & Liberia & Sierra-Leone are only 3 countries, the fourth is Nigeria which is well away from the others, and the cases there stem from a passenger who was severely-ill when arriving by air into Lagos.

On the good-news front, I've read that the two who were evacuated to the USA have both now recovered & been released.

[whybother]

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?

It wasn't too far from the border of 3 countries, but the fourth, Nigeria, doesn't border any of the others.

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

https://www.google.co.th/maps/place/Meliandou,+Guinea/@6.4895097,-0.8669088,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0xfa9a35f789a2f39:0xa99ff0f9fc6be611?hl=en

[hawker9000]

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?

Not really, Guinea-Conackry & Liberia & Sierra-Leone are only 3 countries, the fourth is Nigeria which is well away from the others, and the cases there stem from a passenger who was severely-ill when arriving by air into Lagos.

On the good-news front, I've read that the two who were evacuated to the USA have both now recovered & been released.

Yes, and both had received this new monoclonal antibody treatment, and there's little doubt that treatment was directly responsible for their recovery. So, I wonder what the short-term implications of that are for the containment or even eradication of Ebola. And other diseases besides (like SARS).

[Ricardo]

UPDATE

The BBC is reporting this morning that the latest numbers are 1427 dead and 2615 infected during the outbreak.

Also that a Briton, living in Sierra Leone, has tested positive & is being treated locally, "A decision will now have to be made over whether the patient should be flown back to the UK, said BBC Nigeria correspondent Will Ross."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28914614

(Mods, please feel free to move this, if there's a better thread to put it in.)

[hawker9000]

Understanding that the victim would have to be responsible for his own emergency transportation back and not be allowed to pose a risk to any other travelers, it seems strange to me that there can be any debate about a citizen returning to his own country if he wants to, no matter the medical condition or risk of contagion involved. I would think they'd HAVE to let him in, although public health services and national laws governing the presumed threat to public safety, etc., would then take over and the victim would have to comply.

[Ricardo]

UPDATE

Two cases confirmed in the D.R.Congo, according to the BBC, although they may not be related to the major & ongoing West African outbreak.

"On Sunday, Health Minister Felix Kabange Numbi said two of eight fever victims had tested positive for Ebola.

He told the BBC a quarantine zone would be set up in a 100-km (62-mile) radius in Boende where the cases had been registered."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28922290

And the British health-worker in Sierra Leone, is reported to have been flown yesterday to the UK for treatment, on a British military-jet.

[whybother]

Understanding that the victim would have to be responsible for his own emergency transportation back and not be allowed to pose a risk to any other travelers, it seems strange to me that there can be any debate about a citizen returning to his own country if he wants to, no matter the medical condition or risk of contagion involved. I would think they'd HAVE to let him in, although public health services and national laws governing the presumed threat to public safety, etc., would then take over and the victim would have to comply.

I don't think it is a question of whether they let him in (to England) but whether they let him out (of Sierra Leone).

As it happens, he was taken to London by military plane. I doubt he would have been allowed to go any other way.

[hawker9000]

Understanding that the victim would have to be responsible for his own emergency transportation back and not be allowed to pose a risk to any other travelers, it seems strange to me that there can be any debate about a citizen returning to his own country if he wants to, no matter the medical condition or risk of contagion involved. I would think they'd HAVE to let him in, although public health services and national laws governing the presumed threat to public safety, etc., would then take over and the victim would have to comply.

I don't think it is a question of whether they let him in (to England) but whether they let him out (of Sierra Leone).

As it happens, he was taken to London by military plane. I doubt he would have been allowed to go any other way.

There was some debate apparently, at least in the U.S. newsmedia, about the "wisdom" of letting Dr. Bentley and Nancy Whitbol back into the States. Maybe just the newsmedia trying to stir the pot a little. It pretty much dried up when news of the success of the experimental treatment was published.

Who is the "they" exactly that might have had a say in NOT letting them out of West Africa? (Well, I guess I can see Sierra Leone authorities preventing him access to any publicly used transportation, airport, etc..)

[whybother]

Understanding that the victim would have to be responsible for his own emergency transportation back and not be allowed to pose a risk to any other travelers, it seems strange to me that there can be any debate about a citizen returning to his own country if he wants to, no matter the medical condition or risk of contagion involved. I would think they'd HAVE to let him in, although public health services and national laws governing the presumed threat to public safety, etc., would then take over and the victim would have to comply.

I don't think it is a question of whether they let him in (to England) but whether they let him out (of Sierra Leone).

As it happens, he was taken to London by military plane. I doubt he would have been allowed to go any other way.

There was some debate apparently, at least in the U.S. newsmedia, about the "wisdom" of letting Dr. Bentley and Nancy Whitbol back into the States. Maybe just the newsmedia trying to stir the pot a little. It pretty much dried up when news of the success of the experimental treatment was published.

Who is the "they" exactly that might have had a say in NOT letting them out of West Africa? (Well, I guess I can see Sierra Leone authorities preventing him access to any publicly used transportation, airport, etc..)

"They" would be the "authorities". There is military managing quarantine zones in affected countries. He would also be stopped from boarding any commercial planes. If he did make it to England on his own, he would be quarantined on landing if he showed any symptoms (along with most of the other passrngers).