Posted on 10/08/2014 5:07:35 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
The Ugandan Ministry of Health is reporting today that a 30-year-old male health care worker died of Marburg hemorrhagic fever on September 30.
The gentleman had been a radiographer, or X-ray technician, at the Mpigi Health Centre IV, but was recruited two months ago for a similar position at Mengo Hospital, about 20 miles (33 km) away. When he felt ill on September 17, he traveled back to Mpigi for treatment since “he felt more confortable with a facility that he had worked with for a long time.”
Today’s statement from Elioda Tumwesigye, Minister of State for General Duties & Holding the Portfolio of Minister for Health, describes a total of 80 people who were in contact with the man have been identified and isolated to follow for signs and symptoms during the 21-day incubation period, the same incubation period for Ebola.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
My daughter, her husband and two friends traveled to Uganda in July. They are fine but it’s scary to think what could have been. Marburg is in the same family as Ebola.
Like “Doctor” Sniffles, Barry’s boy down at the CDC likes to say, “First do no harm”. They should have loaded this guy with Marburg on a plane and sent him to America. It would have done wonders for Uganda’s economy according to Ebola “expert”/economist Dr. Sniffles.
Marburg is reported as being much worse than Obloa.
Bookmark
I noticed from a quick search that it is smaller than Ebola. There has to be a certain threshold where these things can go directly though the skin.
Yes, and he can be shipped, become a citizen, get welfare checks, get educated, get medicated, get food stamps, get social security checks and VOTE (several times). Even though he is dead.
Boss Tweed never really died.
What? Barack Ebola’s relative has died?
I believe it's the other way around. The mortality rate for Marburg is lower than that for Ebola. I think the somewhat high rates of recovering victims points to Marburg as the prevalent bad guy here. No doubt some of the cases are Ebola, but the differences between the two are staggering.
Ebola literally turns your soft tissue to pudding. IV's won't stay in the vein as the veins are liquefying. You bleed from your pores and eyeballs. Your body falls apart as the connecting tissue between meat and bones liquefies. It's an ugly way to die.
People sometimes recover from Marburg. Ebola, not so much.
Is there one that has not emerged in someone somewhere in the last few months?
A young second cousin of mine (she was then about 16) traveled to Uganda a few years ago. I was afraid for her safety and prayed until she was home safe. Now, there is no way her parents would have let her go with this plague happening.
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
Much more information on Marburg at The Marburg Surveillance Project Threads (follow links) from the 2004 outbreak. Those threads inspired the Ebola Surveillance Thread currently active.
Ebola literally turns your soft tissue to pudding. IV's won't stay in the vein as the veins are liquefying. You bleed from your pores and eyeballs. Your body falls apart as the connecting tissue between meat and bones liquefies. It's an ugly way to die.
People sometimes recover from Marburg. Ebola, not so much.
No. Ebola and Marburg are indistinguishable by symptoms alone. Neither one turns the organs to mush.
If you compare the death rate of Marburg against all Ebola, Marburg is more deadly, at about 80% fatal, compared to Ebola at 67%.
If you compare Marburg to each strain of Ebola, it is more fatal than four of the five strains. The fatality rate for the other strain, Ebola Zaire, is comparable to Marburg at 79%. Ebola Zaire is responsible for both on-going outbreaks, the one in West Africa and the other in the Congo.
The fatality rate during the west Africa outbreak has been low, in comparison. Fewer than 60% of the victims have died, last I checked. The death rate might be higher in those who cannot get into a clinic or hospital for care.
Both Ebola and Marburg are zoonotic diseases, meaning that they are always present in some animal population, probably fruit bats, in Africa.
We have a zoonotic disease in the US, that is 100% fatal if you are exposed and don't know it. For some reason, though, people don't seem especially concerned about rabies. But if you must catch a zoonosis without knowing when you are exposed, your chances are better with Ebola than with rabies.
Are Ebola and Marburg related? What would happen if the two occurred simultaneously in a population?
Marburg and Ebola are sisters. They are both filoviruses, and look and behave almost identically. The difference is in the genetic material. They both have 7 similar proteins, although Ebola has an 8th protein that Marburg does not have, because one of the genes of Ebola codes for two proteins (usually, one gene codes for one protein).
I think if they both appeared in a population, the control measures would be the same. I would guess that a person infected with both would have a decreased chance of survival—that is purely a guess.
Annual number of deaths due to rabies in the U.S. - 2
http://www.statisticbrain.com/rabies-virus-statistics/
Interesting statistics. Rabies in cats much higher than dogs. Raccoons highest.
Most of us are sensitized to the danger of rabies, and know when we are exposed. On occasion, however, people do not know that wild animals can transmit the disease. On even rarer occasions, an animal bites someone and they don’t know it (I have heard that bats sometimes have very small bites that sometimes go unnoticed, especially if a sleeping person is bit).
In other countries, rabies kills thousands.
Deaths from rabies annually worldwide - 55,000. That’s a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.