Aviation and the Ebola epidemic in West-Africa

[Passenger]

The relation to aviation is that commercial flights to Ebola countries should end.

Last week, you brought up and/or supported a study from a Boston university who called for an end to commercial flights. At least, that was the conclusion from HLN, widely spread out here. I reacted to that a few days ago, but no one reacted. Perhaps because my remarks about that study didn't appear on all screens? Therefore, I allow myself to repeat it. Actually, the last quote from professor Vespiognani (Northeastern University of Boston) is a clear answer to your above (and re-re-repeated) statement "commercial flights to Ebola regions should end":

I was quite sceptical about those Boston University statistics with a prediction, with extreme accuracy, about when and how ebola would spread worldwide, and their suggestion that we need to stop commercial flights. At least, that's how the study was presented here.

But actually, that Boston university didn’t said that. Forbes contacted professor Alex Vespiognani of the Northeastern University of Boston (see link below). Interesting facts! First of all, they used variable parameters – which need an update once one of the parameters has changed. More important is that professor Vespignani is very clear that a reduce of air traffic will only postpone the inevitable: “For most countries, the results indicate that an 80% air traffic reduction more than halves the probability of importing a case of Ebola. An 80% reduction in air traffic only postpones the inevitable. “This is just delaying by four weeks what would have happened without those travel restrictions,” Vespignani explains. What about a 90% reduction? It would only buy you another month or two” (source: Forbes).

Forbes continues: “A travel ban is short-sighted, and would be ineffective in the long run. It’s the epidemiological equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand: ignore the problem and hope it goes away. And the Ebola epidemic isn’t going anywhere. It’s actually getting worse: the number of cases in West Africa continues to increase at an exponential rate”.

More info:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2 ... la-travel/
and
http://www.mobs-lab.org/ebola.html
and
http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/arti ... -outbreak/

[Flanker2]

Last week, you brought up and/or supported a study from a Boston university who called for an end to commercial flights.

If you start your sentence with a lie, I'm not interested to read the rest.
I did not mention the Boston university study last week and I don't remember mentionning Boston University at all.

If you cut off aviation, for me you reduce the propagation risk factor by over 99%, as long as neighboring ground borders remain closed and well-guarded. Boston says that it only reduces the propagation risk by half, which is too conservative.

Expansion through ground travel with asymptomatic Ebola is totally unrealistic.
Example: from Liberia, the only Ebola-free neighbor is Cote d'Ivoire. However, Cote d'Ivoire have already closed its land borders. The few roads that travel between the countries are guarded, so it's totally unrealistic to travel to say ABJ through ground transportation.
Off-road is a survival mission only experts can undertake and it would take many days.

In addition, any Liberian passport would raise eyebrows at one of the reachable domestic Ivorian airports, and any attempts to cross over the sea could be detected easily.

If this thing turns soar, it'll be every man for himself.
I'm suspecting that our governments want it to spread to a certain degree, as it deviates the attention from the economic stagnation that we're in. However, I anticipate that they'll get more than they bargained for.
Do you really think that they care about human lives?

Yourself you are saying that stopping commercial flights will only

delay the inevitable

.
Do you realise what this means?
What is the "inevitable"? Pandemic at 70% death rate?
So you're saying that delaying a pandemic to find a cure, is not worth cancelling a handful of daily flights from 3 airlines... where is your common sense?

Comparing it to H1N1 doesn't really paint the right picture.
H1N1 had a mortality rate of 1.5%. Much higher than the regular flu, but still quite insignificant compared to Ebola's 70%.

[Flanker2]

The search for people who may have been exposed to the deadly Ebola virus continued to widen Friday with Frontier Airlines and both federal and state officials reaching out to over 700 passengers and crew

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/1 ... ed-widens/

On one side an airline rakes up money to carry potential subjects, on the other side, another airline, state agencies and nurses spend money and pain to make up for it. That's the strategy on this one.
Great strategy.

[airazurxtror]

In "Le Soir" today (page 2), Gustin is quoted as saying :

"J'ai toujours dit que s'il y avait le moindre risque pour les équipages ou les passagers, je n'hésiterais pas à arrêter [de voler vers le Libéria, la Guinée et la Sierra Leone]. On évalue constamment la situation. Si, à un moment, les critères de risque changent, on peut décider d'arrêter. (...) Par exemple, si on remarque que les filtres, les systèmes de détection déployés dans les aéroports ne fonctionnent plus, qu'on découvre des problèmes de corruption, ça, ça peut nous faire changer d'avis. Parce qu'on est devant des faits objectifs."

I have always said if there was any risk to the crew or passengers, I would not hesitate to stop [ to fly to Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone ] . Situation is constantly evaluated. If at any time the risk criteria change , one can decide to stop. ( ... ) For example, if we notice that the filters , detection systems deployed in airports do not work , if we discover corruption problems , that, that can make us change our minds. Because we're in front of objective facts. "

Corruption, in Africa ? Nooo !

[FlightMate]

Jeez, what a stupid statement from his part.

like you said... corruption in Africa?

We all understand he made a risk assessment. And that risk is too low now to take actions.
But saying openly that he'd stop the flights if there is any risk involved?
Everybody knows there is "A" risk, even if low.

Does he mean he will wait until a crew member is contaminated before he takes actions?

[Flanker2]

The mayor of Vilvoorde was on the same UA flight as Duncan to IAD, on a trip to discuss ISIS recruitment of youth in Vilvoorde.
He was shocked when a letter from UA sent to him recently informed him that he was on the same flight as an Ebola patient, who later appeared to be Duncan. Although the letter said that there is no risk to him, it still brought him to think about this issue.

He wants to avoid that Ebola comes into our country through the airport and asks the health ministry to be less "nonchalant" with it.

He also thinks that the concerns of the ground crews at BRU are logical.

http://www.hln.be/regio/nieuws-uit-vilv ... -a2093751/


Only 3 of 8 Belgian Ebola-capable hospitals want to handle Ebola cases, in case it's imported by one of the airlines. The other 5 said they can't handle Ebola cases due to lack of resources and training.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland ... elen.dhtml

Yes, Belgium can contain one case, but what will happen if there are more? Will Gustin wait until the 3 hospitals are full to finally put an end to those flights?
Maybe they can stash the additional patients in the B.House as long as SN is kept flying?

[Inquirer]

I was quite sceptical about those Boston University statistics with a prediction, with extreme accuracy, about when and how ebola would spread worldwide, and their suggestion that we need to stop commercial flights. At least, that's how the study was presented here.

But actually, that Boston university didn’t said that. Forbes contacted professor Alex Vespiognani of the Northeastern University of Boston (see link below). Interesting facts! First of all, they used variable parameters – which need an update once one of the parameters has changed. More important is that professor Vespignani is very clear that a reduce of air traffic will only postpone the inevitable: “For most countries, the results indicate that an 80% air traffic reduction more than halves the probability of importing a case of Ebola. An 80% reduction in air traffic only postpones the inevitable. “This is just delaying by four weeks what would have happened without those travel restrictions,” Vespignani explains. What about a 90% reduction? It would only buy you another month or two” (source: Forbes).

Forbes continues: “A travel ban is short-sighted, and would be ineffective in the long run. It’s the epidemiological equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand: ignore the problem and hope it goes away. And the Ebola epidemic isn’t going anywhere. It’s actually getting worse: the number of cases in West Africa continues to increase at an exponential rate”.

Well, I said exactly that as soon as this came out.
There is a very significant time clause linked to the statistical saying, which -when left out- not only makes the statistical saying a pointless value, but the conclusions drawn from it even plain wrong.

by halting commercial traffic the risk of spreading to europe and other parts of the world will be reduced by MINIMUM 50% as calculated by the university of boston.

Final remark from me:

I know it's counterintuitive, but when you half you change on something unavoidable, it still is just as unavoidable and so the outcome hasn't changed a bit at all. (*)
In other words: it's not a very good solution to rely on statistics to guide you on this, as statistics are deceptive tools to be guided by, a mistake many people make in their daily lives too when they do something because they think chances are better that way for them, while the outcome is in fact fixed from the start.

(*) If you dont understand what I am saying: it's like halving the number of bullets when playing russian roulette, while still firing all the shots against your head. In the end you're dead anyway, despite having halved the chances.

All too many people simply do not understand how to read statistics in a correct way, that much is a given and demonstrated here once more. It's not for nothing that the course statistics has one of the highest fail rates amongst first years at university.

[Passenger]

I'm suspecting that our governments want it to spread to a certain degree, as it deviates the attention from the economic stagnation that we're in.

I'm suspecting that our governments want it to spread to a certain degree, as it deviates the attention from the economic stagnation that we're in.

I'm suspecting that our governments want it to spread to a certain degree, as it deviates the attention from the economic stagnation that we're in.

I've posted this unedited quote of you three times to make sure everyone reeds it.

If you cut off aviation, for me you reduce the propagation risk factor by over 99%, as long as neighboring ground borders remain closed and well-guarded.

Well-guarded borders????? Maybe you really need to go to Africa sometime. They travel if they want to travel and if they have the money to travel. I have never forgotten this quote from M. V., station manager Sabena in Zaire, a few decades ago during an educational trip for the Belgian travel trade: "In rural Africa, people have the power to wait a whole day for a bus". Think about that. And perhaps you will then understand how Africans travel. If they want to go and visit relatives in a neighboor country, they will do so. A closed borderpost then is just an obstacle.

Yourself you are saying that stopping commercial flights will only

delay the inevitable

No sir. It's not me who said that. I quoted this statement from professor Alex Vespiognani, Northeastern University Boston: “For most countries, the results indicate that an 80% air traffic reduction more than halves the probability of importing a case of Ebola. An 80% reduction in air traffic only postpones the inevitable. “This is just delaying by four weeks what would have happened without those travel restrictions,” Vespignani explains. What about a 90% reduction? It would only buy you another month or two”.

Source for that quote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2 ... la-travel/

[sn-remember]

So I might be understanding with the policy to continue fligths provided it is demonstrated that they are operated safely. Being cautious, I would expect the protocols to be continuously reassessed and adequately monitored. Some special training seems also necessary.
And the second absolute condition to the flight operation should obviously be in my mind a quarantine of min 10 days (since the average duration of the asymptomatic phase is reported to be 7 days). We should evaluate asap how to implement this in practice.
As long as these 2 conditions are not fullfilled, I would suggest that all scheduled flights to the EB-3 should be suspended (knowing it's a failure somehow to take responsabilities).

But I still hear no voice, see no action going into that direction. The authorities try to put their act together , tentatively preparing for the EVD arrival here, but they do nothing to contain the virus at the door.
What's wrong with quarantine ? When your child has measles he is told by the school authority and doctors to stay at home for 3 wks.
When a planeload disembarks it's to expect that a good fraction of them are carrying the virus. Just look at the figures .. In january, it is extrapolated 1.2M will be infected and in feb the double (infected people to double every 3 wks) .. Meaning that the same proportion of infected people should logically be sitting inside the plane.
So no it's not too costly to put these in quarantine, in fact it's cheap compared to the huge costs of a virus outbreak.
And it's criminal not to do it.
Ref http://www.economist.com/news/internati ... -could-yet

[sean1982]

Well-guarded borders????? Maybe you really need to go to Africa sometime. They travel if they want to travel and if they have the money to travel. I have never forgotten this quote from M. V., station manager Sabena in Zaire, a few decades ago during an educational trip for the Belgian travel trade: "In rural Africa, people have the power to wait a whole day for a bus". Think about that. And perhaps you will then understand how Africans travel. If they want to go and visit relatives in a neighboor country, they will do so. A closed borderpost then is just an obstacle.

If that would be the case then why has it almost not spread within africa beyond those 3 original countries?
In fact most infecties that did occur outside the 3 have been contributed to air travel

[RoMax]

Gambia Bird was blocked from relaunching flights between Freetown and London by the UK (although just 2 weeks earlier they received the permit).
But this time it is Air Côte d'Ivoire that plans to relaunch flights to the Ebola-hit countries, making it easier for health workers to enter the countries. As from October 20, the airline will resume flights to Conakry, followed by Freetown and Monrovia from October 26.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-1 ... ed-nations

[FlightMate]

And again, I wonder... why now?
What makes it safer now for these airlines to restart their operations there?
why did they stop in the first place?

[Inquirer]

Because more and more people are starting to realise this is much more mass hysteria than anything else?

Latest one in line to clearly speak his mind is Barack Obama, President of the USA.
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/buite ... =1.2122339

The tide is indeed turning it seems; more and more airlines are returning to these areas and provided they take the customary measures, flying there shouldn't be any different than maintaining connections with Asia during the SARS outbreak?

[airazurxtror]

Lors d'un contrôle sanitaire à l'aéroport de Roissy, une quadragénaire belge, revenant d'une mission humanitaire en Guinée, s'était présentée avec une fièvre de plus de 38°C : un des symptômes du virus Ebola. Classée "cas possible", elle a été transférée à l'hôpital Bichat (Paris).

http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-faits-di ... 7774887119

During a health check at the airport of Roissy, a Belgian forties , returning from a humanitarian mission in Guinea , was presented with a fever over 38 °C: a symptom of Ebola virus. Classified " case possible," she was transferred to hospital Bichat ( Paris ) .

[Passenger]

http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/vie ... id-barajas

An Air France plane with 183 passengers on board has been detained in the Madrid -Barajas airport for a health emergency, according to local media. A passenger is suspected to have symptoms of Ebola. The man, who had no fever, flew to the French capital from Lagos (Nigeria), according to El Mundo.

The Spanish priest, who was hospitalized in Madrid last Thursday, has been dismissed from hospital today: the ebola tests were negative.
http://politica.elpais.com/politica/201 ... 09800.html

[Passenger]

The mayor of Vilvoorde was on the same UA flight as Duncan to IAD, on a trip to discuss ISIS recruitment of youth in Vilvoorde. He was shocked when a letter from UA sent to him recently informed him that he was on the same flight as an Ebola patient, who later appeared to be Duncan. Although the letter said that there is no risk to him, it still brought him to think about this issue. He wants to avoid that Ebola comes into our country through the airport and asks the health ministry to be less "nonchalant" with it. He also thinks that the concerns of the ground crews at BRU are logical.

Good to hear Hans Bonte starts thinking about ebola. Pity though he didn’t do that whilst he was president of the (previous) federal parliament commission for Health. Actually, all Bonte proofs is that politicians can change faster from opinion than a cameleon can change colours. Untill last week, Bonte supported the federal government decisions on ebola. He had to: his party supported the governement and Bonte's party companion (PS/spa) Onkelincx was minister of Health. However, since last week new bosses rule the country. Bonte's party is now excluded from the governement, so today Bonte is against the federal goverment decisions on ebola.

[Flanker2]

Good to hear Hans Bonte starts thinking about ebola. Pity though he didn’t do that whilst he was president of the (previous) federal parliament commission for Health. Actually, all Bonte proofs is that politicians can change faster from opinion than a cameleon can change colours. Untill last week, Bonte supported the federal government decisions on ebola. He had to: his party supported the governement and Bonte's party companion (PS/spa) Onkelincx was minister of Health. However, since last week new bosses rule the country. Bonte's party is now excluded from the governement, so today Bonte is against the federal goverment decisions on ebola.

So you know how politicians are. And you rely on them to do the right thing for the nation?
If this thing spreads into Belgium, they will quit and leave the rest of the people to deal with it.


The first day back to CKY for AF, and already they caught one possible case.
And it was a Belgian woman who went there to care for Ebola patients.
Bravo to AF, for contributing their part, and bravo for the woman for taking no precautions.

Doctors and medical personnel helping on Ebola are being reckless here.
They come back from there as if it was a trip to Disneyland, putting friends and family at risk.

[FlightMate]

Doctors having been there know how bad the disease is. They are trying their best to eradicate it, then they recklessly fly back to Europe endangering the population.

If you're a doctor, you should know better and force yourself to a small quarantine before flying back.

Anyway, I hope it's another case of paludism.

[Flanker2]

WHO said in the draft document that "nearly everyone" involved in the response to Ebola failed to notice factors that turned the outbreak into the biggest-ever on record.

When Doctors Without Borders warned in April that Ebola cases were out of control, a dispute on social media broke out between the charity and a WHO spokesman who insisted the virus was being contained.

So far, Ebola has been blamed for 4,546 deaths in West Africa out of at least 9,191 cases. WHO estimated that there could be 10,000 cases every week by December unless stronger measures are enacted to fight the outbreak.

In the draft document, which wasn't released publicly, WHO blamed numerous factors for the now explosive Ebola epidemic, including incompetent staff, bureaucracy and a lack of reliable information.

The WHO is still making a crucial mistake, ie encouraging commercial travel from the affected countries.

[Flanker2]

Cases as of 12/10/2014: 8973, of which deaths 4484.
Cases as of 17/10/2014: 9216 of which deaths 4555
5-day delta: 243 new cases (+2.7%), 71 new deaths (+1,5%).
This week's projected weekly increase rate is 340 new cases per week (+3.8%), 100 new deaths per week (+2,2%).

If able, I will post these figures every week to mark the trends.
The cases only count cases reported to the WHO.
They count confirmed, probable and suspected cases.