Poor dog

Re: Poor dog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:50:55 GMT

Bob Far more scientifically valid than killing Excalibur. If Ebola gets to this country - it will be because an incubating human has brought it. As for our useless border force - just what do we pay our utterly exorbitant taxes for?

Wynne

Re: Poor dog

Christina Smith — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:26:57 GMT

Shame about the dog. I don't envy those who took the decision. Most likely it was a practical or economic decision. Who takes responsibility/ what will it cost and who foots the bill for it that sort of thing

Re: Poor dog

Bob Russell — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:27:34 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Why not simply ban anyone from entering the country if they have been in an infected country during the previous 3 weeks?

Wynne

[/quote]

Because it would be a massive over-reaction!

Spanish Flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. Modern medical care would allow a majority of these to survive. Risks need to be put into perspective!

The Border Force are incapable of monitoring existing arrivals and departures so don't expect any ban to be effective!

Re: Poor dog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:23:39 GMT

Why not simply ban anyone from entering the country if they have been in an infected country during the previous 3 weeks?

Wynne

Re: Poor dog

Bob Russell — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:38:09 GMT

All western (and many other) countries have well rehearsed military biological warfare processes including decontamination. Solid but early intervention would have been both possible and could easily have contained the illness.

Why is action only being taken now? It is easy to say it is their problem but judging by recent events it clearly is not! Cases have occurred in Europe and the States. Whilst unlikely to become an epidemic in countries with more advanced medical facilities the more out of control it becomes in Africa, the more infected people will arrive at the airports.

Re: Poor dog

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:27:19 GMT

I'm not against sending aid, medical supplies etc to the countries affected, just don't think we should be sending people to or from there.

Re: Poor dog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:38:39 GMT

Ill informed hysteria. Very very sad

Wynne

Re: Poor dog

Bob Russell — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:26:25 GMT

If the dog is a possible biological carrier the process of euthanasia must have put the vet involved at risk? If the dog was shot then blood (presumably infectious) would have required clearing up!

Would strike me as safer to gown and glove up and give the dog a good wash and maintain a distance until the risk period is over.

Just seems a very odd way of balancing risks to me!

Re: Poor dog

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:09:10 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]I guess the difference is that the house can be locked up for as long as it takes for the Ebola virus on surfaces to die off, whereas the dog would have to be moved to an isolation facility and barrier nursed. [/quote]

Well if the dog was just acting as a fomite then you could wash it from head to foot in chlorhexidine, or whatever (think Ebola isn't actually that tough in the face of antiseptics, willing to be corrected though) and leave it at that.

If it has the potential be be a biological carrier then there is merit in considering euth. Better to use this case as a study as Francisco suggested though. Perhaps could have quarantined it with the nurse's husband who could have tended to it and collected samples for virus antigen testing. It's by no means certain that exposed dogs shed virus - no work has been done to show this. I haven't seen any reports of dogs in Liberia and Sierra Leone being culled to help prevent the spread of infection either.

Re: Poor dog

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:59:02 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

If they can become carriers just by contact with an infected person (rather than eating them) perhaps there is merit in the decision to euthanase the dog. If they are merely fomites then Wynne is right - by that logic the owner's house should be razed to the ground. What about the people who were in contact with the nurse? Kill their pets and raze their houses too? What if it turns into an epidemic in Spain? Kill all the pets and raze all the houses? If the dog is simply a potential fomite in this case, then the decision to euthanase shows as much scientific thinking as you would find in the jerking knee of a headless chicken.

[/quote]

I guess the difference is that the house can be locked up for as long as it takes for the Ebola virus on surfaces to die off, whereas the dog would have to be moved to an isolation facility and barrier nursed. A decision may have been made that as its owner appears to have been infected with Ebola despite taking all the recommended precautions, the risk to the people who would have to feed it, clean it out, etc, can't be taken.

Re: Poor dog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:45:27 GMT

Francisco I'm in total agreement with your latest post

Wynne

Re: Poor dog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:38:32 GMT

T he answer to population control is to tackle the problem pre-conception

Wynne

Re: Poor dog

Bob Russell — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:31:46 GMT

South East England is pretty over populated as well. Is ebola the answer here as well? Better than building new homes?

I have to admit a comment suggesting that ebola should be used as a means of population control is in pretty poor taste. That said moving highly infectious patients across continents does not seem that sensible either!

Re: Poor dog

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:19:26 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]The point I'm making is we should just leave the third world to it, it's overpopulated as it is. [/quote]

Oh dear.

Population density people/sq km World ranking pop. density

Liberia: 36 175

Sierra Leone 85 117

UK 262 51

Carbon footprint and use of other resources of average UK citizen vs average "third world" (let's just lump them all together) citizen: don't know, guess first probably bigger than second though.

Perhaps you'd care to pop over to Liberia and get yourself infected and come back here to spread it around a bit, Robin. Do your bit for population control and all, even if it does mean dying horrifically. Or perhaps we should just build a big fence round them and let them rot.

I agree with not bringing back medical staff for treatment here - perhaps there should be one hospital out there dedicated to the treatment of all infected foreign medics then a quarantine period- but the notion of not letting anyone go there to help is just....yuk.

Re: Poor dog

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:08:25 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

I expect that if more human cases arise in Spain, somebody might get interested in seeing if in-contact dogs shed any virus

[/quote]

We had the perfect opportunity to do this now! (I know it's not a properly designed prospective study, just an isolated case report. But why waste it!?)

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

but hey ho it's easier to just kill the dog belonging to the first patient (her husband wants it quarantined, like him) and earns "look, we're doing something" points.

[/quote]

Exactly my point. Thank you.

Excálibur is dead now. Sometimes I feel ashamed of some of my compatriots...

Re: Poor dog

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:02:32 GMT

Had a look to see what I could find online. There is one article - published in the journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases in 2005 - studying seroprevalence of Ebola in dogs during the outbreak in Gabon in 2001-2. There were 439 dogs in the study. The authors had noted that dogs in the region typically ate the carcasses of dead animals and had also been observed licking the vomit from infected humans. The was a high prevalence of antibodies in the dogs (tested by ELISA) but they found no viral antigen or viral DNA by PCR in the blood samples. They failed to isolate the virus from any of the samples. Saliva, urine and faeces of the dogs were not tested.

The paper states that, "Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete virus particles in urine, faeces and saliva for a short period before virus clearance, as observed experimentally in other animals" but gives no reference for these experiments. The "short period" is not defined. The paper goes on to recommend further reasearch with experimentally infected dogs to study shedding. I expect that if more human cases arise in Spain, somebody might get interested in seeing if in-contact dogs shed any virus; but hey ho it's easier to just kill the dog belonging to the first patient (her husband wants it quarantined, like him) and earns "look, we're doing something" points.

Re: Poor dog

katja wagner — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:23:48 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

An epidemic of any fatal disease will burn itself out eventually. You don't need to be a professor to see that!

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"] we need to stop sending aid workers, nurses and do gooders going to these infected areas putting themselves at risk and then people at home when they come back.[/quote]

An interesting, but to me rather scary, suggestion. Should we extend that logic as far as say stopping nurses and doctors attending patients with infectious diseases in wards in UK hospitals in case they spread nasty stuff around outside? For example, most of the MRSA cases I see are owned by people with strong human hospital links (i.e. they usually work there) and the bugs are often typically human strains.

[/quote]

I don't think you can compare it to MRSA. Ebola can kill a healthy person who contracts the virus, whereas MRSA usually only infects debilitated patients, undergoing surgery etc. The point I'm making is we should just leave the third world to it, it's overpopulated as it is.

[/quote]

I have given you a red star ,something I hardly do but your last comment is rather horrible.

Re: Poor dog

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:21:17 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

An epidemic of any fatal disease will burn itself out eventually. You don't need to be a professor to see that!

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"] we need to stop sending aid workers, nurses and do gooders going to these infected areas putting themselves at risk and then people at home when they come back.[/quote]

[/quote]

Re: Poor dog

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:19:30 GMT

[quote user="katja wagner"]dogs can be asymptomatic carriers[/quote]

Re: Poor dog

katja wagner — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:18:26 GMT

I would really like to know why I was awarded a red star.I did not make this up,just stated some facts I have read so what is the problem?

Re: Poor dog

Matt Hilary — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:12:48 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

IThese are merely looking into make money (yes, that is what a company does and there is nothing wrong with it until it is dealing with people's health)

[/quote]

Or animal health?

Re: Poor dog

katja wagner — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:00:47 GMT

If I understand it right,dogs can be asymptomatic carriers,they contract the virus by eating meat of dead animals or even humans ,I guess this did not happen in the spanish case.

Re: Poor dog

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:59:48 GMT

An epidemic of any fatal disease will burn itself out eventually. You don't need to be a professor to see that!

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"] we need to stop sending aid workers, nurses and do gooders going to these infected areas putting themselves at risk and then people at home when they come back.[/quote]

Re: Poor dog

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:19:52 GMT

This might sound harsh, but we need to stop sending aid workers, nurses and do gooders going to these infected areas putting themselves at risk and then people at home when they come back. I heard a professor of virology on tv and he said this epidemic will burn itself out. It needs close contact with contaminated body fluids for transfer.

Re: Poor dog

Rob Reid — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:58:17 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Our extreme right wing policies (I'm mean Spanish) had let our NHS (Seguridad Social) with an increased control by private companies (the hospitals are public but managed by private companies with as little degree of regulation as possible). These are merely looking into make money (yes, that is what a company does and there is nothing wrong with it until it is dealing with people's health) and that means cheapest possible measures in all kind of situations. Including this one.[/quote]

Sounds a little bit like what's going to happen to our NHS if certain people have their way. Be warned people....

I think the situation with the dog is rather OTT. My understanding of Ebola is that it only affected bats and primates, so thus the dog would only potentially be a fomite I guess, in which case this is rather harsh. However I guess if they feel there is a risk then Mr Spock logic must apply - the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.