Ebola Death Toll: 1,013

at

Screen Shot 2014-08-12 at 11.52.30

Al Jazeera reports:

The Ebola virus has killed 1,013 people and infected another 1,848 across West African nations, latest World Health Organisation data shows.

The fatalities include 52 deaths recorded between August 7-9 in three countries at the centre of the epidemic – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, according to data released late on Monday.

A Spanish priest named Miguel Pajares, 75, the first European infected by a strain of the virus died in hospital in Madrid, a spokeswoman for the city’s health authorities said on Tuesday.

Previously: Ebola Death Toll: 603

Ebola death toll hits 1,000 mark (Al Jazeera)

Ebola outbreak: Liberia says experimental drug on the way from US (The Guardian)

Pic: Macleans

Sponsored Link

25 thoughts on “Ebola Death Toll: 1,013

  1. Kill The Poor

    But as a percentage of those countries populations & their population densities these figures arent that alarming yet.

    The WHO seems to have contained it, no need to worry unless you work for SKY or FOX, then its PANIC LEVEL 11 !!

    1. kurtz

      It’s alarming in the sense that it hasn’t burned itself out. The fact that it’s not as deadly is worrying, it just continues to infect because of it.

      Better treatment and funding for medical workers in the effected countries will contain it, as well as long term education of the disease and how to stop it spreading among local populations.

    1. rotide

      Shush Odis. Only the Indo can ask readers to help them with typos and then have scorn heaped upon them.

    1. rotide

      In fairness Bodger, you guys are usually quite good with underscoring your edits rather than invisibly editing them as if nothing ever happened (i.e. the croke park/aviva edit today)

        1. rotide

          Yeah, strikethrough, not underline, doh.

          That’s what I mean. If you’re going to run stories about typos and stuff like that, visible editiing with strikethroughs seems like a more honest way to go.

          1. Spaghetti Hoop

            That’s no good if you want to pretend you never made the mistake in the first place.

  2. munkifisht

    Want to worry, cancer, heart disease, car accidents, malaria, all of which kill more people a day than Ebola has so far. This year, Israel’s been more dangerous than Ebola.

    That’s not to say it shouldn’t be contained. The damage it could do in Africa could be horrendous and it is a vile disease, but there’s more worrying things in the world.

    1. jeremy kyle

      Valid point, but to be fair none of those diseases can be passed from person to person, also there’s no treatment or vaccine. The reason main fear is the potential for it to spread.

      1. D

        Influenza is passed person to person and kills far more than Ebola. Ebola is actually pretty poor at spreading and the death rate while high is a little overstated given the fact that the people who get it are generally in very poor countries. It’s got pretty close to zero chance of ever gaining even a tiny foothold in a Western country where we have advanced medicine and perhaps more importantly a trust of doctors.

        Unless you plan to treat people stricken by the virus or alternatively handle dead bodies I wouldn’t worry about catching it.

          1. munkifisht

            The spread is largely attributed to poor hygiene and the fact people aren’t washing their hands, this is because the disease is spread by fluid exchange (via sexual transmission, blood, urine, faecal matter and due to the fact the dead bodies remain infectious).

            Despite it’s spread, infection rates it seems are actually quite low relative to other diseases (like influenza for example). You also need to factor in the fact that the infrastructure isn’t there to deal with the infected and quarantine them, and those infected are generally in poor health that those in the developed world. Also, bodies have not been disposed of correctly.

            The reason it has been declared an international emergency is the WHO are worried about it’s spread through Africa. Fears for the rest of the world it would seem are very low.

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          That’s a very dismissive view. The very fact that it is difficult to spread and has a low death rate is why it should be easy to stamp out. The fact that it thrives in poor countries means this countries will always remain poor. Which is a larger problem.

          1. ahyeah

            “The fact that it thrives in poor countries means this countries will always remain poor”

            Ebola is responsible for global poverty? Steady on there, Spaghetti.

          2. Spaghetti Hoop

            I didn’t say that. But a nation’s population sick is hardly good for a nation’s health services, economy, sustainability. Disease has always been a factor in contributing to poverty; dysentry is the big one. The water supply becomes polluted very quickly and people’s basic needs suffer.

          3. Nigel

            Vicious circle innit? Poor countries can’t afford the measures to halt the spread, and it doesn’t do your economy any favours if your populace is vulnerable to diseases that have been managed to triviality by richer countries.

      1. ahyeah

        Could we wipe out Israel using ebola? Hang on, probably can’t aay that. Allowed to think it? No? Oh, okay… leave it there so.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie