Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I haven't read the volumes of info on Ebola but a few things seem clear.

- Ebola is easily spread by physical contact/proximity, but also contact with 'infected' surfaces/items.

- Checks at airports are not 100% going to stop Ebola because there is not enough time and controls to identify all infected passengers.

- Airplane staff will come in to contact with infected passengers and this could mean passengers on other flights being infected via the infected staff, taking the disease to other countries/communities.

- About half of those infected die.

- Flights land daily from infected areas.


I haven't yet seen anything definitive which assures me that the UK (or other currently non-infected countries) is protected. The infected nurse in Spain apparently followed advised procedure, she cannot understand how she got contracted Ebola. Let's hope she survives.

If this disease hits the UK, a densely populated country with fast travel links across it's entirety, I do wonder how bad it is going to get - and what the approach taken to eradicate it will be.

My practical side says that whatever the approach would be (and I'd be surprised if each administrative area in the UK has thought about their likely response yet), we should be applying it now in the infected region. If we (the soon-to-be infected countries) can provide this support immediately at the source, we may have a better chance of preventing it's spread. If Ebola gets to non-infected countries, they will all, seperately, be fighting the battle anyway. You could say this is the ultimate NIMBY post, but we're not talking an overlooking back window here.


Is anyone else concerned about the imminence of Ebola in the UK, as opposed to being a far away problem a world away ?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/50172-ebola-in-the-uk/
Share on other sites

I'm concerned, definitely. It hasn't escaped my attention that many of the recent news items interviewing people with family in affected areas have been conducted on Peckham High Street. Air travel, aid workers, family members attending funerals, schools - it's not going to be long before we see cases here.


Short of putting an absolute quarantine on the area in West Africa where it's stemming from (nobody in, nobody out, which will never happen as basic human rights would be breached), I don't see what can be done. Very scary indeed.

The only practical thing I can think of at this point is to donate to help the fight to stop it at its source. And to support the already over stretched medical, social, sanitation etc services in the affected countries, as this current crisis sidelines all the other prevalent diseases.

http://www.msf.org.uk.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk.

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk

I don't think there is any cause to be that concerned yet. It's not nearly as contagious as you've implied, "easily" is not at all correct. This article has a good run down of some of the myths about Ebola http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/09/ebola-highly-contagious-virus-myths-outbreak-epidemic including it's relatively low contagion rate. A quote from someone at Public Health England in the link below: "If you are symptomatic [of Ebola] and infectious you are not going to be in a position to be hopping on a plane". My understanding in the Spanish case is that there were clear failings in the protocol and some sub standard equipment that is probably to blame.


The constant scare-mongering from some sections of the media isn't helping with this. Many more people will die from flu this year, in this country, but you rarely hear much about that. And many many more from lots of other very preventable diseases that are pretty unpleasant. I think our sense of risk about our health is really very skewed.


Should it arrive in this country, we have lots of measures in place, they were wargaming this scenario just this week http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/09/ebola-outbreak-simulations-tested-uk-hospitals. However, it's a different story in the poorer parts of West Africa, where they are having to turn infected patients away from hospitals because they have run out of beds. I completely agree that more needs to be done in these regions, it's clear that places like Sierra Leone need outside help. People shouldn't be dying unnecessarily from this anywhere.


And, if it becomes completely uncontrollable there, then the risk to the UK does increase, but the infrastructure is completely different here. I'd be much more concerned about what I could do to prevent all these other much more likely causes of death in this country http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mortality-statistics--deaths-registered-in-england-and-wales--series-dr-/2012/sty-causes-of-death.html

Kat - It's reassuring to hear that Ebola is not such a threat after all.

After you posted above, the next BBC R4 news opening headline was about a medical worker in the US contracting Ebola despite following the strict protocols for protection from infection.

This (to me, a neutral observer) gives the impression that it's not a difficult disease to contract.

I'd prefer that the media is hyping this disease, you're able to quote opposing views also from the media - so to me there's hugely varying information leaving a nasty question mark over this outbreak.

I agree flu kills more people in the UK than Ebola does, but Ebola's not here yet.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29591561

Whilst I won't discount entiely the possibilty of an outbreak here, we're well set up to handle it. Nigeria managed t contain and eradicate an outbreak in a far more difficult environment than the UK would be.


There is probably more useful stuff you can concern yourself with.


Ebola's infection rates are very low, health workers are of course massively more at risk than the rest of us, and have taken a hideous toll in w africa as they don't have nearly as much of the protective equipmenty and ideal conditions for quarantine.


Ebola has a couple of properties that mean it's not going to be *the one*.


Firstly as discussed it's comparatively hard to catch, you need direct contact with fluids off a patient. It is quite hardy outside but not that hardy, it will die after a short space of time and in contact with disinfectant.


Secondly It's not contagious until you're symptomatic, this makes it harder to go around infecting people, because you're ill, and much easier for quarantiine purposes obviously.


When Platypus flu crosses species, that'll be the time to worry...or when antibiotic abuse in the the third world/US farming kills off its effectiveness once and for all, then it's time to panic!!!

pommie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is an article in the paper today that there

> is a guy in Lewisham hospital that has Ebolo!



False alarm. Apparently he didn't have the virus after all.


apbremer, given the seriousness of this, do you really think it's appropriate to crack jokes?

Completely agree steveo, .


I watched the half hour show about Ebola last night (BBC1 from memory) and it was very good, it put my mind at rest a little in terms of the "what ifs" of it arriving in Britain. Very encouraging to hear that Nigeria are now Ebola free, having put rigorous procedures in place to beat it.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hunger is a significantly contributing factor in

> the death of 3 million kids per year......it's a

> pity hunger isn't infectious as the west might

> jump to action on that.



Agree Quids but unfortunately the fear of contracting a life-threatening virus that can affect/kill us is more important than something going on elsewhere that may be bad but is not going to affect us personally.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...