Ebola Threat

[Jerry1934]

Sorry but the problem is that you have to sign up to the web-site in order to read the article. The article flash's bye but it is covered by a sign in screen and will not let me read the article unless I sign in. Maybe I'm the only one who has that problem. I'm not a technical guru.

Jerry

[Responder]

Sorry but the problem is that you have to sign up to the web-site in order to read the article. The article flash's bye but it is covered by a sign in screen and will not let me read the article unless I sign in. Maybe I'm the only one who has that problem. I'm not a technical guru.

Jerry

 

I now remember that you have to be a subsctiber on some sites to read some articles...sorry..here it is....

 

 

 

 

September 5, 2014 4:18 pm

In the face of Ebola a little panic is a healthy thing

 

Christopher Caldwell By Christopher CaldwellAuthor alerts

The conditions of managing this crisis are coming to resemble those at Chernobyl

©PA

 

The outbreak of a new strain of the deadly Ebola virus in Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and now Nigeria and Senegal has turned west Africa into a battleground between the promise of globalisation and its terrors.

 

An instance of the promise is a remarkable study published in Science Magazine by four dozen medical professionals active in African epidemiology. Just half a year into the epidemic, they have sequenced 99 Ebola genomes, identified hundreds of mutations, and discovered the incident that spread the disease across the border from Guinea into Sierra Leone in late May – the funeral in Guinea of a faith healer who had treated Ebola patients, attended by 13 Sierra Leonean women.

 

 

An instance of globalisation’s terrors can be found in the fact that, in the three months since that funeral, five of the report’s Sierra Leonean co-authors have died.

 

There is no cure for Ebola, a virus that lives in fruit bats and other mammals, and spreads easily through the exchange of fluid – blood, sweat, tears, saliva and so on. There have been two- dozen outbreaks since the virus was first discovered in Congo in 1976, but never one like this, in which the death toll exceeds that of all previous episodes combined. At least 3,500 people have contracted the disease, and half that number have died. Patients can take up to 21 days to become symptomatic.

 

Those with the responsibility of addressing Ebola have oscillated between urgency and complacency, panic and cool. The response in Africa has been marked by extraordinary courage, at least among health professionals. These are surely the people best prepared to take precautions against Ebola, and yet hundreds of caregivers have been infected, 120 of them fatally. The dangers of managing this crisis are coming to resemble those at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Health workers are running through gloves, wraps, body suits and alcohol-based hand sanitisers at a rapid clip.

 

Among the broader public, the response is more desperate, which is reasonable under the circumstances. Patients are avoiding care, figuring that while there may be Ebola in their blood, there is definitely Ebola in the hospitals. There have been militarised roadblocks and heavy-handed attempts to quarantine neighbourhoods with high rates of infection in Sierra Leone and Liberia, leading to confrontations and violence. The worst-affected countries do not have the political infrastructure to deal with such a crisis.

 

Even so, a view of the virus that sounds oddly Pollyanna-ish has become prevalent in the west. Ebola is not airborne, doctors stress, nor is it bugborne. Infected Americans have been brought back home for medical treatment. The World Health Organisation has not called for closing any borders, and has even released a poster reading: “Travel to and from Ebola-affected countries is low-risk”. (It is low risk as long as you do not touch anybody who has developed symptoms or use the same bathroom.)

 

Similarly, an online forum in Le Monde stressed that “it is illusory to think that borders can be airtight”. Well, sure it is, but might not imperfect borders help a bit? It is rather like telling the Dutch they are fools to build dykes and levees because no anti-flooding system can keep out every drop of moisture.

 

Injunctions not to panic alternate with emergency proclamations, even in the heart of the same organisation. Joanne Liu, president of the French charity Médecins Sans Frontières, warned that the world is “losing the battle” against Ebola. But Rosa Crestani, who heads the same organisation’s Ebola intervention, said in the forum in Le Monde: “With globalisation, it’s impossible to close the borders. It’s not ‘correct’ and it’s not recommended by the WHO.”

 

A similar division exists in the private sector. There are companies that have stopped doing business in the worst-hit African countries, notably major airlines, which have discontinued flights. But there are also pharmaceutical companies working confidently on remedies and screening kits. GSK is soon to begin trials for a vaccine.

 

It is good not to go overboard. Still, one has the sense that the course of treatment is being circumscribed by a reluctance to say anything that would disrupt the project of globalisation. That taboo cannot last. Ebola is too frightening.

 

In Liberia, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf – a winner of the Nobel peace prize – has used police to restrict the freedom of movement of those in afflicted neighbourhoods. In America, Donald Trump was applauded in certain circles for calling on the US to stop all flights from west Africa. “The United States has enough problems,” he wrote. In the presence of an epidemic, good manners persist only until the threat draws sufficiently near.

 

The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard

[Jerry1934]

Thanks, great article I hope everyone reads it.

I wonder how understated the numbers of people infected actually are? Between the culture that denies that there is Ebola, the politics of economy (there goes the tourist trade) and lack of data reporting technologies, the understatement could be 4 or 5 times more than what we see.

Jerry

[Travelcat2]

Mentioning the tourist trade is interesting. I have no doubt that Regent is aware, on a daily basis, of what is going on in the area where the Mariner plans to dock. If there is truly no basis to be concerned about Senegal and other countries in Africa where the CDC has not issued an alert, it would be a shame to take the tourist trade away from places that need the income so much. Of course, if there is any verifiable danger, Regent should avoid this port. I tend to believe the CDC more than some of the news reports that we've been reading.

[Responder]

Mentioning the tourist trade is interesting. I have no doubt that Regent is aware, on a daily basis, of what is going on in the area where the Mariner plans to dock. If there is truly no basis to be concerned about Senegal and other countries in Africa where the CDC has not issued an alert, it would be a shame to take the tourist trade away from places that need the income so much. Of course, if there is any verifiable danger, Regent should avoid this port. I tend to believe the CDC more than some of the news reports that we've been reading.

 

 

The tourist trade has always been a factor, but non necessarily because they need the income so much. It's business for those on both sides.

 

Regent alone, is not the only ones qualified to recognize any verifiable danger. There are numerous health related organizations around the world and whether or not they are US Government sponsored does not make them valid or invalid. In reality, they are the ones involved directly inside the areas where this epidemic is happening.

 

What is your source for believing the CDC more than the news reports coming directly from the affected areas?

[Jerry1934]

Hi Travelcat2, keep in mind that Cape Verde has issued an alert that no ship that stops at any port in Senegal among others (in the previous 30 days) will be allowed access to their port. This makes it a tough decision for Regent. If they stop at Dakar then they can't stop at Cape Verde.

If you get a chance, you might want to check the CDC site and look at the comments that the head of CDC made when he returned (Sept. 2) from his tour of West Africa. It was not encouraging.

Jerry

[Travelcat2]

Hi Travelcat2, keep in mind that Cape Verde has issued an alert that no ship that stops at any port in Senegal among others (in the previous 30 days) will be allowed access to their port. This makes it a tough decision for Regent. If they stop at Dakar then they can't stop at Cape Verde.

If you get a chance, you might want to check the CDC site and look at the comments that the head of CDC made when he returned (Sept. 2) from his tour of West Africa. It was not encouraging.

Jerry

 

Good point. For the heck of it I checked KLM airlines to see if they are still flying to Senegal and they are. It does look like Regent has a choice to make. We are on the cruise before yours and will be following what Regent will do. There will no doubt be discussions about this since there are many passengers on our cruise that continue on after we get off.

 

The distance between Cape Verde and Senegal is 330 nautical miles. If Regent wanted to go to both ports, they technically could go to Cape Verde first and then to Senegal. If you look at the map, it doesn't look that far out of the way.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Travelcat2

[Jerry1934]

Interesting suggestion however I think that if they reversed Dakar with Cape Verde it would increase the total cruise days by about 36 hours and disrupt the arrival time in Barbados and the other stops in the Caribbean. But it might work. Good thinking! There may be a job for you at Regent.

Jerry

[Boreus]

A Situation Report on Ebola Response as of September 5, 2014 from the UN World Health Organization (WHO) states that: "In Senegal, one person, who travelled by road from Guinea to Dakar on 20 August, tested positive for EVD [Ebola virus disease] on 27 August. 67 contacts are being followed-up; none of these have tested positive so far... In Senegal, the identified case is currently in isolation, with 67 contacts being followed." The full report is at http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/5-september-2014-en.pdf?ua=1

 

I could find no WHO recommendation on travel to Senegal.

[Jerry1934]

That is an interesting report. I am concerned when they say that the report is based on cases reported to them. Other services are reporting 2000 deaths and WHO is only reporting 17xx. Based upon the reporting technology available and the political/cultural environment I would believe that any numbers coming out of the area are significantly under stated.

In any event I always lean to the conservative side when I can avoid possible hazardous environments. There will always be another opportunity to visit the area if I am alive to make the trip.

Jerryhttp://boards.cruisecritic.com/images/icons/icon7.gifhttp:

Edited September 7, 2014 by Jerry1934

[Responder]

That is an interesting report. I am concerned when they say that the report is based on cases reported to them. Other services are reporting 2000 deaths and WHO is only reporting 17xx. Based upon the reporting technology available and the political/cultural environment I would believe that any numbers coming out of the area are significantly under stated.

In any event I always lean to the conservative side when I can avoid possible hazardous environments. There will always be another opportunity to visit the area if I am alive to make the trip.

Jerryhttp://boards.cruisecritic.com/images/icons/icon7.gifhttp:

 

Jerry....

 

You got that right...

 

I wish others would try to understand how we feel.

[kennicott]

Interesting suggestion however I think that if they reversed Dakar with Cape Verde it would increase the total cruise days by about 36 hours and disrupt the arrival time in Barbados and the other stops in the Caribbean. But it might work. Good thinking! There may be a job for you at Regent.

Jerry

 

 

 

Wouldn't that be something, port at Porto Grande first instead of Dakar. Wouldn't have needed that expensive yellow fever vaccination if that was the first itinerary.

 

Anyway, I get 527 statute miles from Porto Grande to Dakar. Since Porto Grande is west northwest of Dakar, some distance will be made up as the portion going north, in the original itinerary, won't be lost with a Porto Grande stop first, however returning to the east is a loss and the lost mileage going back east has to be much greater than slight gain of not having to travel north as originally planned.

 

So I bet, around 700 mile plus extra voyaging due Porto Grande first. That's a good day and a half extra sea time. Don't believe they will like that.

 

Guess that matches your calculation exactly Jerry, 36 hours. And that is if the Captain really lays the whip to her.

Edited September 7, 2014 by kennicott

[Jerry1934]

I'd like to say I'm an old Navy man on second thought I am old and I spent 3 year at sea as a kid on an Aviation Gasoline Tanker (USN AOG 9)that could only go 12 knots so my estimates are just that guesstimates.

See you on board.

Jerry

[Travelcat2]

I'd like to say I'm an old Navy man on second thought I am old and I spent 3 year at sea as a kid on an Aviation Gasoline Tanker (USN AOG 9)that could only go 12 knots so my estimates are just that guesstimates.

See you on board.

Jerry

 

While the Mariner and Voyager sometimes go that slowly, 17-18 knots is typical. When we were 2 hours late leaving a port, the ship was going over 19 knots (really uses expensive fuel but they can actually do over 20 knots).

 

Responder: In a way I understand your feelings but Regent is not going to react to a handful of people complaining about docking in Dakar. Don't necessarily think that nagging at Regent is the best way to go. Simply stating your concerns once (per person) should suffice. You may get your wish as Regent may change that port due to the issue in Cape Verde.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Travelcat2

[kennicott]

Don't necessarily think that nagging at Regent is the best way to go. Simply stating your concerns once (per person) should suffice. You may get your wish as Regent may change that port due to the issue in Cape Verde.

 

I'm not certain what is the best approach. Having been in the travel game, air, almost all of my professional career I could argue it both ways. On one hand it is possible this may be one of the worst plagues the world has witnessed in modern times. A bunch of concerned travelers voicing their opinion and concerns about a travel destination nearly in the heart of the infestation certainly isn't going to raise eyebrows with the corporate hierarchy to the point they are irritated at those speaking out for crying out loud, they themselves are probably sweating blood over the matter as we speak. Then too, nobody saying anything is also an issue. How many times have I seen a situation "go to heck on a hand cart" when it was quite obvious things were dicey beforehand, then later some managers said, well nobody said anything.

 

My bet is that Regent is going to cancel. After all, Seabourne took a powder and it appears most of the industrial tour concerns are doing the same. There are a few remaining air carriers holding on. In Senegal, KLM appears to be one of those. But then, wasn't KLM the one just in front of or just behind Malaysia Air when it got blown out of the air in the Ukraine when Air France, British Air Ways, etc. etc. had bagged overflight of that war zone territory months before?

Edited September 8, 2014 by kennicott

[Responder]

And the beat goes on....

 

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140908/-ebola-the_resurgence-e0133b91ad.html

 

Another report..

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-us-military-to-provide-equipment-resources-to-battle-ebola-epidemic-in-africa/2014/09/07/e0d8dc26-369a-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?hpid=z1

Edited September 8, 2014 by Responder
add report

[jongbj]

I don't want to downplay the treat of Ebola as it is a very serious disease with a very high death rate. I just want to put a little perspective to the discussion:

 

The WHO expects at total of 20.000 people to get infected during this epidemic, it is expected that approx. 10.000 will die.

The total population of Western Africa is approx. 340 million.

 

 

In the US yearly approx. 20.000 people die of the flu.

The total population of the US is approx. 320 million.

 

Would we expect cruise ships to avoid the US in flu season?

 

[numbers found on wikipedia]

[Responder]

I don't want to downplay the treat of Ebola as it is a very serious disease with a very high death rate. I just want to put a little perspective to the discussion:

 

The WHO expects at total of 20.000 people to get infected during this epidemic, it is expected that approx. 10.000 will die.

The total population of Western Africa is approx. 340 million.

 

 

In the US yearly approx. 20.000 people die of the flu.

The total population of the US is approx. 320 million.

 

Would we expect cruise ships to avoid the US in flu season?

 

[numbers found on wikipedia]

 

 

The difference is that if there's a flu epidemic in the US, given a choice, it would be quite foolish to seek out those impacted areas to visit.

 

The flu is rarely deadly except for older folks, which many of us on this cruise will be....whereas Ebola is deadly for all..

[jongbj]

And the chance for a cruise guest to encounter a person who is infected with Ebola is astronomically small, if not zero.

[Jerry1934]

Response to Jongbj

Sorry but that is a Apples and Oranges comparison. There is a vaccine for the FLU and medication to reduce the effects and spread of infection.

The next comparison can be smoking vs Ebola or Auto deaths vs Ebola. Stop smoking, stop driving etc. Using numbers is a way to influence the public and there is a whole industry that is in that business.

Can't agree with you!

Jerry

Edited September 8, 2014 by Jerry1934

[redmaid]

Surely this has now become a no-brainer for Regent.

If Mariner goes to Senegal, she will not then be admitted to Cape Verde.

Cancel Senegal, everyone will feel safe and happy and we can still go to Cape Verde.

We will have wasted money on yellow fever but that is small change compared to the risks from Ebola.

PLEASE REGENT ACT NOW

[journeyfan]

Is it a fact that Cape Verde won't allow ships to dock that have visited Senegal? I know they are banning ships from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, but I haven't heard that Senegal was on that list.

[jongbj]

Response to Jongbj

Sorry but that is a Apples and Oranges comparison. There is a vaccine for the FLU and medication to reduce the effects and spread of infection.

The next comparison can be smoking vs Ebola or Auto deaths vs Ebola. Stop smoking, stop driving etc. Using numbers is a way to influence the public and there is a whole industry that is in that business.

Can't agree with you!

Jerry

 

Actually, it is just a matter of math and numbers: what is the chance of dying of Ebola vs. what is the chance of dying of the flu (both this year).

I state that for the passengers on the Regent ship that will dock in Senegal, the chances of dying of Ebola are slim compared to the chances of them dying of the flu this year.

It makes no difference that you believe the comparison is wrong or that one can make calculations towards other risks. One can also calculate the risk of dying this year of second hand smoke. Also the fact that there are inoculations against the flu makes no difference.

The issue is that the Ebola threat is PERCEIVED differently that the flu-risk, it seems that it is perceived to be a higher risk, while in fact, the risk seems to be much lower.

Now the question becomes not whether or not Regent does not get the risk of the Ebola-threat, it becomes the question of whether Regent should change an itinerary solely on the PERCEPTION of a certain risk that some passengers may have.

 

I do agree that at some point, the facts are no longer important, if the majority of your customers want you to change, even if it is based on perception only, one should change.

 

Edit: all based on the situation on September 8th, 2014. If Senegal, which does not yet have Ebola, get overrun, everything changes.

Edited September 8, 2014 by jongbj

[redmaid]

http://www.ebusinessconsultant.co.uk/foreign-travel-advice/index.php?country=cape-verde

 

This confirms that Cape Verde has banned ships from Senegal

[Travelcat2]

Actually, it is Now the question becomes not whether or not Regent does not get the risk of the Ebola-threat, it becomes the question of whether Regent should change an itinerary solely on the PERCEPTION of a certain risk that some passengers may have.

 

Edit: all based on the situation on September 8th, 2014. If Senegal, which does not yet have Ebola, get overrun, everything changes.

 

Agree with your well thought-out posts. It seems that a handful of passengers on this cruise have complained (less than the 5% that usually post on the CC board). It sounds as if these passengers have made their feelings known repeatedly. Assuming there are others who may have contacted Regent from this cruise, it would still not be a high number.

 

Due to the issue in Cape Verde, the itinerary may in fact be changed -- not because of the few people that are concerned about a remote possibility but because of restrictions placed upon visitors to Senegal.

 

Regent has made several port changes in the past -- not because they were nagged or harassed to do so -- simply because it was necessary and in the best interest of the passengers for the circumstances present at the time. If we could not trust Regent to make these type of decisions for us, we would not be sailing on Regent.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Travelcat2