UKC

As Lemming posted in October ( Ebola expected in the UK within months) would it not be better to isolate and quarantine Heath workers in the country of origin of the infection, until it is proven they are not infected, and then allow them to travel?

It is to their credit that they are willing to put themselves at risk, but should perhaps not we impose better controls on their travel until the incubation period has passed, and if they then do then have symptoms, then fly them back (in isolation) to get the care they rightly deserve.
This would be a small additional inconvenience to the health worker, but now we are trying ( despite there being 'zero risk',) to contact a whole flight of fellow passengers ( presumably to monitor them too)

http://news.sky.com/story/1399419/glasgow-healthcare-worker-diagnosed-with-...

( n.b my family have been/ are health workers for generations, so I am a supporter, and not in any way criticising them)

In reply to Jim C:

I don't know about mandatory quarantine, if it puts many workers off volunteering it could make the problem worse? A rapid and reliable test before travel would seem a good compromise? If such a thing exists...

However... Flying front line staff back on commercial airliners out of countries well away from the infected areas seems like massively tempting fate, and a good way to start shaking public faith in air travel. Having recently been to Morocco and having - very briefly - considered the Ebola situation before travelling, it never occluded to me that I could have been sat next to an infected person for 4 hours, or exchanging fluids with them via toilet taps etc. Pretty dumb of me in retrospect, I had assumed they were getting flown around on military medical transports. Hah, idiot.

A more knowledgable person might correct me, but as I understand it there is no solid consensus on the probabilities/timescales of the virus evolving an aerosol stable form, if that happened and people are regularly flying on jets to/from places well outside the Ebola zones, Very Bad Things could happen. But the aid workers need to travel - who is going to pay for private charters given the massive range of places these people volunteer from?

The only "answer" I've got is that national governments and the WHO should have a better handle on things! The fact they don't suggests a total lack of foresight and planning that doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to handle this or future crises.

In reply to wintertree:

I could have been sat next to an infected person for 4 hours, or exchanging fluids with them via toilet taps etc.


I think it needs to be a lot more than that, more like cleaning up infected vomit and diarrhoea before your likely to catch it.

In reply to Jim C:

I was lead to believe they are quarantined before leaving. It's possible they were cleared and presented symptoms after the fact.

In reply to Jim C: My understanding is that the existing system of monitoring has identified a case in the very very early stages - long long before the unfortunate person has become contagious and therefore long long before becoming a danger to anyone else; either sitting next to them on a flight or using the same toilet facilities etc.
Again my understanding is that people have to be very ill (ie bed ridden rather than still capable of walking around) in order to be contagious with this disease.
I just wish a speedy recovery to this person...

In reply to Jim C:

I've done two trips to West Africa since Ebola broke out and was initially encouraged to see how nations like Nigeria were dealing with the threat. Then I met a passeger who had just passed through a temperature check at Lagos and been declared "too cold" (probably because he had just left the sweaty check in area and moved into an air-conditioned part of the terminal) and ended up paying the screening staff a "dash"to get through. So it begins to look as if the temperature screening has become just another means of relieving passengers of cash.

The Glasgow health worker got on the 'plane feeling well and didn't begin to feel unwell until the night after her return home. Possibly she came home because she knew she had compromised the screening and was very likely to become infected - who knows? Anyway she would have known that she wouldn't become infectious until the symptoms began to appear so I wouldn't accuse her of recklessness.

In reply to Jim C:

I think quarantine for health care workers is probably not required - as this case shows they know how to spot the symptoms and react in an appropriate fashion to limit public health risk.

I would consider quarantine for random folk coming from infected zones - but the relative lack of spread to western countries in the c 1 year of the outbreak suggests that either current systems are working well or the disease is not all the popular press crack it up to be - no surprise there.

In reply to Jim C:
2nd case confirmed in Glasgow. Ebola is now more prevalent in Scotland than Tory MPs

*not confirmed....being tested. my bad.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

According to the BBC, about 120 people have been tested for ebola in the UK (before the current case)