Aviation and the Ebola epidemic in West-Africa

[Passenger]

Duncan, a Liberian national, tested positive in Dallas, Texas, on 30 September, 10 days after arriving on a flight from Monrovia via Brussels.

You have forgotten a very relevant fact here: the Emergency Service from the Texas hospital had sent him away after he visited them a first time with ebola symtoms, although he had clearly advised them that he came from Liberia. Only four days later, the hospital started treatment for ebola. Too late, it now appears.

[sn-remember]

@pax
The point airazurxtror is stressing is that a contaminated pax did travel by air and in this case in a SN plane.
The proof that he did not contaminate some fellow travellers while flying cannot be fully established.
That might be a tentative answer to a concern rightfully raised.

[Passenger]

@pax
The point airazurxtror is stressing is that a contaminated pax did travel by air and in this case in a SN plane.
The proof that he did not contaminate some fellow travellers while flying cannot be fully established.
That might be a tentative answer to a concern rightfully raised.

The fact that ebola was not diagnosed sooner is the most decisive factor for his death. Not the fact that he travelled abroad, not the fact that he flew Brussels Airlines.

If one is only contaminated, one cannot infect other passengers. One can only contaminate other persons once one "has" ebola (ex. fever of +38,6°). That's why fever is checked three times at most West African airports nowadays: at the entrance, at the check-in, at the gate.

[Inquirer]

Something which hasn't been mentioned yet, and which can be useful information for those saying Ebola patients must be kept over there: a country may legally not deny access to one of it's citizens.

Combine this with the fact that many NGOs are known to give reassurance of priority medical assistance -possibly repatriation- in case of medical needs during an intervention, and you see why there will be more cases brought back to Europe, especially as we need more local intervention to stop it.

[sn-remember]

@Inquirer
We are not discussing the principle of assistance and if necessary rapatriation.
We are discussing the modus operandi.
I thought it was clear and obvious to all.

[RoMax]

I think RAM as SN as any other carrier operating from the epicenter need to coordinate with some respected international health authority in order to implement the necessary sanitary checks and transportation measures deemed appropriate.

They are doing that for months already, same with Gambia Bird that decided to relaunch the 2 weekly Freetown-London Gatwick flights on October 17.

Thomas Duncan, who travelled through BRU on SN and UA from Monrovia has died from ebola.

Was already mentionned by airazurxtror
(btw, his routing doesn't change anything to him having Ebola and/or dying, we all know he travelled SN and UA, no need to repeat that either)

[RoMax]

@Inquirer
We are not discussing the principle of assistance and if necessary rapatriation.
We are discussing the modus operandi.
I thought it was clear and obvious to all.

Actually, if people claim that the current Ebola infection in Spain wouldn't have happened without commercial aviation in and out of these countries, there seem to be people being unaware of certain elements (such as countries like Spain and the US arranging special flights to get their citizens back to their home country to be treated, as happened with the Spanish priest and before with US health workers). It is a very valid comment that countries cannot deny acces to their citizens for this reason. As you can read in my post at the previous page, countries not banning flights and/or closing its borders for people/flights to/from this region has some very good reasons. One of them is that they don't want to prevent people from going to these countries to help stopping the epidemic and they cannot (they are not even allowed to) prevent their citizens that are already there, to return.

[Inquirer]

@Inquirer
We are not discussing the principle of assistance and if necessary rapatriation.
We are discussing the modus operandi.
I thought it was clear and obvious to all.

Yet to some that isn't and they are still taking a NIMBY attitude so to say, which is why I'd like to highlight the fact that the remark that the Spanish priest should have been kept in Africa as a line of defence for instance, is just not possible.

[Flanker2]

Something which hasn't been mentioned yet, and which can be useful information for those saying Ebola patients must be kept over there: a country may legally not deny access to one of it's citizens.

It is a very valid comment that countries cannot deny acces to their citizens for this reason.

Yes they can if this person is a threat to the public health.

"They" is Spain's health system. Just like with infected US citizens, these people are brought back to their own country because that's how a democratic country should act, giving your own citizens the best possible chances on survival!

Both Spanish priests died and in addition they infected a nurse who in turn infected her husband and god knows who else.
That's indeed how a democratic country should act.


Let it come to Belgium and spread a little bit, and we'll see if Passenger, Inquirer and Romax can still take it so lightly. Mistakes occurred in the U.S. and in Spain on just a handful of cases and Ebola is on its way to Belgium if it's not already here. We'll talk again then.

[sn-remember]

@pax
The point airazurxtror is stressing is that a contaminated pax did travel by air and in this case in a SN plane.
The proof that he did not contaminate some fellow travellers while flying cannot be fully established.
That might be a tentative answer to a concern rightfully raised.

The fact that ebola was not diagnosed sooner is the most decisive factor for his death. Not the fact that he travelled abroad, not the fact that he flew Brussels Airlines.

If one is only contaminated, one cannot infect other passengers. One can only contaminate other persons once one "has" ebola (ex. fever of +38,6°). That's why fever is checked three times at most West African airports nowadays: at the entrance, at the check-in, at the gate.

You have a partial valid point ..
Valid : The incubation window is reported to be between 2 and 21 days (avg 8 days)
Invalid : During the incubation window, the patient is contaminated.
That's why I believe to do things effectively, a quarantine should be performed before giving the green light for flying in a civil a/c .. But who will put that in place ? Probably halas not feasable.
This issue is broader than just civilian air service responsability ..
It's to see how to limit the spreading of the virus.
I've no problem if rob (or fna, even cky, it has to be decided in accordance with the day to day evolution) is cut ou for a while from civilian air services, the transportation can be assured in other ways more appropriate (military, sanitary adhoc transportation etc ..)
Anyways it is an international issue that should translate into effective decisions now.

[Passenger]

Let it come to Belgium and spread a little bit, and we'll see if Passenger, Inquirer and Romax can still take it so lightly. Mistakes occurred in the U.S. and in Spain on just a handful of cases and Ebola is on its way to Belgium if it's not already here. We'll talk again then.

I don't speak for others, but I have listened to what prof. Van Ranst told us on VRT: for sure, with all those thousands of West Africans travelling to Western Europe, we will have an ebola case in Belgium, perhaps more. But we won't have an outbreak - let alone an endemie.

[sean1982]

Is that the same Van Ranst who in 2009 made our government order vaccinations against mexican flue for hundreds of thousands of euro's which then turned out not to be nescessary? He sure was right then

What about our university hospitals that claim they are not prepared for ebola patients? Leuven has place for 2!! cases

[sn26567]

What about our university hospitals that claim they are not prepared for ebola patients? Leuven has place for 2!! cases

MSF has its training centre in Brussels, where all their doctors and nurses are trained to handle Ebola cases under the same conditions as in Africa. Sure they can handle several cases simultaneously.

[sn-remember]

Well I just had a look on how the health screening is performed at rob ..
Just what I feared ..
Ineffective, dangerous even ..
Performing the temp check 3 times is useless, once should be ok if properly done.. But how is it done ? And the hygiene ? And possible bribery ?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... f-Training
It's urgent a respected international health authority organises this.

[Passenger]

Breaking news:

Groningen (NL) had a fatal case of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease yesterday (Tuesday). It's not known how the 76 year old victim got infected.

Because the incubation period for Creutzfeldt-Jacob is 4 to 20 years, a closure of Groningen Airport till 2034 seems necessary.

[sean1982]

Breaking news:

Groningen (NL) had a fatal case of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease yesterday (Tuesday). It's not known how the 76 year old victim got infected.

Because the incubation period for Creutzfeldt-Jacob is 4 to 20 years, a closure of Groningen Airport till 2034 seems necessary.

Omg, I nearly died laughing .... Not
I wonder if you would still make such comments if you or one of your loved ones gets infecties with ebola

[sn26567]

Liberia attacks British Airways for suspending flights to Ebola-hit country

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... untry.html

With Britain now preparing to send out hundreds of aid workers to both countries - some 400 NHS volunteers are to go to Sierra Leone alone - demand for flights is expected to soar in coming months. Liberia's information minister, Lewis Brown, urged BA to change its mind, saying it should not undermine the aid work being done by Britain for both countries.

[Passenger]

Seems the reason for the ebola contamination of the Spanish nurse has been established: he thinks he had touched his own face with his glove, just after he cared the infection patient Garcia.

http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20141008/au ... 5542.shtml

[ezis_bis]

This thread is getting ridiculous and laughable again
Two Ryanair fanboys seem to have found another reason to bash SN
And dito response
I think there are good reasons to keep flying (as asked by health organisations), but there indeed are some other concerns.
Although when reading about Ebola, I think people would freak out less if they knew how it spreads.
Regardless
Could we now grow up and stop throwing mud at each other?

Thank you

[sean1982]

It has nothing to do with FR or SN ... if Ryanair would be flying there I would say exactly the same ... and I for one would NOT be crewing any of these flights.