Two people have died from the Marburg virus in Ghana, with up to 100 people in quarantine
The Marburg virus traces back to monkeys imported from Uganda. But it has been linked to many other animals since then.
It started with two large outbreaks of the virus, which occurred simultaneously in the German town of Marburg and Frankfurt, and in Belgrade, Serbia.
This led the World Health Organisation to formally identify the virus in 1967, after 31 people became infected.
In fact, there was an outbreak in 2005, where over 300 people were killed in Angola.
The virus’ common symptoms include fever, body aches, diarrhea, vomiting, and extreme blood loss.
In Europe, one person has died in the past 40 years. Likewise, in the U.S. one person has died after returning from Africa.
Should I be concerned?
Ghana is in the grips of a Marburg outbreak, where two people have been killed. It is understood fatality rates range from 24 to 88 per cent.
The World Health Organisation says the virus can get out of hand, but notes local health authorities have responded swiftly.
“Many people go on to bleed from various parts of the body and die eight to nine days after first falling ill, because of extreme loss of blood and shock.”
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
Patients have been described as “ghost-like”, with a “deep set of eyes”, and “extreme lethargy”.
However, the World Health Organisation believes rehydration with oral or intravenous fluids, and the treatment of specific symptoms, improves survival.
How can I avoid it?
People remain infectious with Marburg for as long as their blood contains the virus.
The disease spreads through direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people.
“Transmission via contaminated injection equipment or through needle-stick injuries is associated with more severe disease, rapid deterioration, and, possibly, a higher fatality rate.”
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
Similar to the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organisation recommends “good outbreak control” that uses a “range of interventions, namely case management, surveillance and contact tracing”.
Costa is a news producer at ticker NEWS. He has previously worked as a regional journalist at the Southern Highlands Express newspaper. He also has several years' experience in the fire and emergency services sector, where he has worked with researchers, policymakers and local communities. He has also worked at the Seven Network during their Olympic Games coverage and in the ABC Melbourne newsroom.
He also holds a Bachelor of Arts (Professional), with expertise in journalism, politics and international relations. His other interests include colonial legacies in the Pacific, counter-terrorism, aviation and travel.
Victoria’s Secret is facing backlash after issuing an apology to a transgender woman who had a negative experience while trying on bras at one of their stores.
The incident has ignited a debate about inclusivity and sensitivity in the fashion industry.
The controversy began when the trans woman, who remains anonymous, visited a Victoria’s Secret store to shop for bras. She reported feeling uncomfortable and discriminated against by store staff.
In response to her complaint, Victoria’s Secret issued an apology, acknowledging the incident and expressing their commitment to diversity and inclusion.
However, the apology itself has come under fire from both supporters and critics.
Some argue that the brand’s apology is insincere and merely an attempt to save face, while others believe it is a step in the right direction towards a more inclusive shopping experience for all customers.
The incident raises important questions about how brands should handle situations involving discrimination and whether their apologies are genuine or performative.
It also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by transgender individuals when accessing spaces traditionally designed for cisgender customers.
As the fashion industry continues to evolve, many are calling for a deeper examination of inclusivity and sensitivity, not just in policies but in practice.
Despite a decrease in overall personnel numbers, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has seen a notable increase in senior officers, leading to concerns about its top-heavy structure.
In recent years, the ADF has undergone significant downsizing efforts, resulting in a reduced total workforce.
However, a closer look at the numbers reveals a surprising trend – a growing number of senior officers within the organization.
The rise in senior officers has raised questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADF’s hierarchy.
Critics argue that a top-heavy structure may hinder decision-making and resource allocation, potentially impacting the ADF’s operational capabilities.
Is the increase in senior officers a deliberate strategy, or is it the result of unintended consequences from downsizing efforts?
What implications does a top-heavy structure have on the ADF’s ability to respond to evolving security challenges?
Are there plans to rebalance the officer-to-enlisted personnel ratio within the ADF?
India has been grappling with a significant challenge in its energy sector as hydroelectric power generation has experienced a sharp decline.
This shift in the energy landscape has forced the nation to increasingly turn to coal as an alternative source of power.
The dwindling water resources and changing weather patterns have led to a decrease in hydro generation, posing a pressing dilemma for the country’s energy sustainability.
With India’s growing population and expanding industries, a steady and reliable power supply is crucial.
However, the drop in hydroelectric power output due to factors like reduced rainfall and glacial melting has strained the nation’s electricity grid.
As a result, coal-fired power plants have become a more prevalent choice to bridge the energy gap, despite concerns about environmental impact and carbon emissions.