Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Isaac J Threadbare  
#1 Posted : 31 December 2014 09:33:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Isaac J Threadbare

It seems that the health and safety professionals have got it wrong again. I have a plan: When people are out and about helping with the treatment of Ebola, how about having a quarantine arrangement a little distance from the infected area where the doctors/nurses can stay until the 21 days have passed before coming back to the UK. I would have thought that it was obvious that my little plan would have been a better option than the complete illogical plan that was put in place. Or has it something to do with costs? It is now proven that the existing system does not work. Strange how a person who lands in the UK is fine, pops on a plan to Scotland, then ops, not well, flown back south etc etc. Does everyone get tested 7 times ?
potts2030  
#2 Posted : 31 December 2014 09:48:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
potts2030

i suspect that the governments plan is little more than a placebo so that the can say we are doing something. I agree with your idea but where would they site the quarantine site as the media has whipped up a frenzy about Ebola
johnmurray  
#3 Posted : 31 December 2014 20:00:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Potts2030 wrote:
i suspect that the governments plan is little more than a placebo so that the can say we are doing something. I agree with your idea but where would they site the quarantine site as the media has whipped up a frenzy about Ebola
I suggest that nice little island: Necker.
Isaac J Threadbare  
#4 Posted : 01 January 2015 09:36:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Isaac J Threadbare

Any Island as long as it is close to the point of contact! A change in the disposal of bodies is a start. Rather than burial I suggest cremation. This would remove the chance of the drinking water being contaminated (remember the Crimean war and dear old Nightingale - slightly different I know but too close for comfort) . Also noted is the depth of burial pits used. The remains appear to be very close to the surface with the dead being resurrected by animals (read into that what you may). The whole culture needs to change. Remove the need/want to eat bush-meat. The culture of the way the infected are treated by the family of the victim. We have has 30+ years to help sort this but when it was only the 'poor blacks of no consequence' being killed a blind eye was turned. These days ... I also suggest taking a close look at the frightened eyes of the various members of our government on this subject!
Ian Bell  
#5 Posted : 01 January 2015 12:27:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell

Issac - since starting to use these forum a few weeks ago, time and time again you have stressed the importance of training and competence in terms of electrical safety. No issues with that. So are you now qualified & experienced to advise on Ebola? Just wanting to query your knowledge & experience in medical matters.... Not easy this safety lark, knowledge is required on many subjects ...
Isaac J Threadbare  
#6 Posted : 01 January 2015 17:35:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Isaac J Threadbare

I'm just saying that once again the obvious is missed. I'm sick of being told that 'there is little or no risk' when it is all to clear to anyone following this Ebola problem that the people in charge have no idea what is going on.
Ian Bell  
#7 Posted : 01 January 2015 18:30:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell

So do you have the medical/public health academic qualifications and experience to make that comment? To pass judgement on the medics involved? Maybe the 'obvious' isn't so obvious? After all being qualified and competent is so important in the field of electrical safety. Somewhat double standards position, wouldn't you say?
bob youel  
#8 Posted : 05 January 2015 07:45:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

With all due respect to all its obvious that our politicians are doing their usual and nothing more so U do not need to be an expert to know what a mess we are in. And medical friends of mine who are experts with regards to the spread of disease have expressed the same comments as Isaac
RayRapp  
#9 Posted : 05 January 2015 08:36:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

'It seems that the health and safety professionals have got it wrong again.' Bit presumptuous, anyway, surely it should be medical professionals? Personally I don't think that one person slipping through the net is a cause for panic or alarmist claims of incompetence. No one else has been infected as a result as far as I can tell.
jwk  
#10 Posted : 05 January 2015 11:36:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Have to agree with Ray here; journalists are very quick to throw words like 'shambles' around when their own areas of expertise and life experience are usually limited to sitting at a desk, drinking coffee, writing against the clock and little else. Ebola is hard to catch; it has a conversion rate of 1.7, which means that if one person has Ebola and no precautions are taken, that person will infect 1.7 others. Measles has a conversion rate of 14, flu has a similarly high rate and kills very many more people worldwide than Ebola has since it was first identified in the 1970s. These diseases are easy to catch, Ebola is not. Quarantine is not needed at this stage. I am sure that Save the Children is busy finding out what went wrong, and I am sure they will share their findings with the other agencies involved. I am also sure that the infected person is being given the best possible care, I hope she recovers, John
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 05 January 2015 12:07:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Surprises me when H&S professionals complain about ill-informed speculation about their own areas of work but are only too happy to comment on other areas they know nothing about. Ray and jwk have got it right.
jay  
#12 Posted : 05 January 2015 12:13:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

I would leave it to public health professionals. My understanding is that the current controls have been from the Chief Medical Officer which is an accountable position! https://www.gov.uk/gover...symptomatic_contacts.pdf https://www.gov.uk/gover...re-asymptomatic-contacts https://www.gov.uk/gover...-management-and-guidance
Xavier123  
#13 Posted : 05 January 2015 12:19:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

I wasn't going to reply because, y'know, feeding those that live under the bridge etc. But the last thread dealt with this very well. The arguments are already made. This single case changes nothing and does not alter my opinion one bit. The powers that be outright stated that they anticipated a very low number of cases might occur in the UK. I recall they predicted under ten. They anticipated this situation, expected it no less, and had a plan for it. They enacted it. And it worked. If a politician was in charge I'd possibly be worried, but PHE is actually in charge and, funnily enough, have a fair idea what they're on about. Very disappointed to see hyperbole and media hype being semi-quoted on a site where we know from personal experience and competence just how little the populist media care or know about the exact truth of a situation.
gramsay  
#14 Posted : 05 January 2015 13:54:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gramsay

Didn't this case show that a lot of things worked as intended? The poor woman involved notified the authorities herself. She apparently didn't meet the risk threshold for being denied the flight to Scotland, and when her condition developed she was transferred to the best place for her. Isn't all of the shouting about whether she should have flown to Glasgow coming from people who (like me) know nothing about the epidemiology issues? She hasn't infected anyone - what exactly are we saying went wrong? The last thing these amazing people need is ill-informed stigmatization based only on fear of the unknown, rather than proper controls based on evidence and competence.
stonecold  
#15 Posted : 05 January 2015 13:57:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

agree with post 14. Think this is a troll post anyways, just desingned to spark arguments.Anyone who comes to this forum reguallary will probably understand and agree with what im saying.
fiesta  
#16 Posted : 05 January 2015 15:59:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fiesta

It was suggested earlier in this thread that the answer was simple.... All we have to do is change the entire culture of several quite large under-developed countries:- Change how they view western intervention. Removed the ingrained influence of their own "Shamen" type healers Change how that care for their sick. Change how they treat and bury their dead their dead. Piece of cake ! We'll have it sorted in a couple of weeks.
jay  
#17 Posted : 05 January 2015 16:36:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

Although digressing, the plight of the so called "under-developed" nations in Africa, predominantly ex-colonies of European Imperial powers that became independent in 1950s' & 1960s' needed a generation (30 years) of careful nurturing of their fledgling democracies and systems of governance. Instead of this, we had the "cold war" with all gloves off, all sides supporting military/other dictatorships and the total erosion of decent governance and rampant corruption. This has ultimately led to situation in most of the African nations having military dictatorship i.e. the Sudan (Al Numeiry), Congo (Mobutu), Somalia (Siad Barre) , Libya (Gaddafi), Egypt (Nasser), Nigeria(Yakubu Gowon), Ghana (Akwasi Afrifa), Mali(Moussa Traoré) Uganda(Idi Amin) , Ethiopia (Mengistu Haile Mariam) just to name a few! Had there been a "nurturing" approach, their destinies would have been very different and we would not be having the immigration influx to Europe today. We never learn and have short term outlook ! This nurturing was an absolute requirement as Africa had been divided like a cake by the imperial European powers without any consideration of tribal & linguistic divisions. The only African country that has survived tribal divisions is Tanzania, although it had several years of statutory single party rule.
Andrew W Walker  
#18 Posted : 05 January 2015 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

Jay wrote:
Although digressing, the plight of the so called "under-developed" nations in Africa, predominantly ex-colonies of European Imperial powers that became independent in 1950s' & 1960s' needed a generation (30 years) of careful nurturing of their fledgling democracies and systems of governance. Instead of this, we had the "cold war" with all gloves off, all sides supporting military/other dictatorships and the total erosion of decent governance and rampant corruption. This has ultimately led to situation in most of the African nations having military dictatorship i.e. the Sudan (Al Numeiry), Congo (Mobutu), Somalia (Siad Barre) , Libya (Gaddafi), Egypt (Nasser), Nigeria(Yakubu Gowon), Ghana (Akwasi Afrifa), Mali(Moussa Traoré) Uganda(Idi Amin) , Ethiopia (Mengistu Haile Mariam) just to name a few! Had there been a "nurturing" approach, their destinies would have been very different and we would not be having the immigration influx to Europe today. We never learn and have short term outlook ! This nurturing was an absolute requirement as Africa had been divided like a cake by the imperial European powers without any consideration of tribal & linguistic divisions. The only African country that has survived tribal divisions is Tanzania, although it had several years of statutory single party rule.
I'd press the 'like' button if there was one. Andy
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.