Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A BRITISH HEALTHCARE worker who contracted the Ebola virus in Sierra Leone is being flown back to London for treatment, the Department of Health said tofday.
Officials said the patient was currently on a military plane en route to Britain and, while not seriously ill, would be treated at an isolation unit at a London hospital.
“The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) and NHS England can confirm that, following clinical advice, a decision has been made to repatriate a British national healthcare worker residing in Sierra Leone, who has been diagnosed with Ebola virus disease,” a statement issued by the Department of Health said.
“The patient is not currently seriously unwell and is being medically evacuated in a specially equipped C17 Royal Air Force (RAF) plane to RAF Northolt in the UK.
“Upon arrival in the UK, the patient will be transported to an isolation unit at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.”
England’s deputy chief medical officer Professor John Watson insisted that the risk of the virus being spread in Britain remained “very low”.
Ebola spreads through direct contact with the blood or bodily fluids of an infected person.
The unidentified Briton is the first person from the country to have contracted the virus in a recent, devastating outbreak.
The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported that the infected person is a male medic who was working for a charity in Sierra Leone.
Ebola has spread through Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, while Nigeria has also been affected, killing a total of 1,427 people since March.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned it could take several months to bring the epidemic under control.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
stupid banks
How many people could that save from starvation in Somalia? I reckon it would be enough to save them all. What benefit, “in real terms,” did Ireland get from throwing another 2 billion at the banks? Is there someone out there who can enlighten please!
Can anyone explain how after a harsh budget in 2010 that was supposed to make a major correction this year, the deficit is still so high? Please someone answer. I am concerned. Is anyone else concerned?
I mean it is still too high after you take away the input to the banks. We would only be 2 billion euro better off.
Rtfa
Yes very concerned. And now Italy & Spain may need bailouts im very very concerned. Just what is the answer to this financial holocaust ?
It is worrying alright. Another big problem thats going to hit us very soon is the fact we own 48 billion euro worth of Italian bonds. Many commentators believe Italy is on the verge of default. This mess is going to get alot worse.
Billions shmillions it all just seems like a game in which we have very little influence. Ireland , as someone put it, is like a cork bobbing around in a stormy sea.
The banks have been guaranteed by the Irish State to save them.
Time to move on. It’s shit, we know it’s shit but it’s time to build a bridge.
Bridge to where?
A bridge with only one side isn’t really a bridge, it’s just a road leading to a big fall.
Terry, we put money into the banks last year too.
Why do you and many other journalists insists on using such inconsistent methods for conveying data.
You change from Millions to Billions in the same sentence that you decide screw numbers its time for percentages.
Tax revenues are up 1.3% but does that cover the shortfall of €190,000,000 from VAT receipts?
The answer is no, its €0.03 Billion off
@Stephen: Each individual measure (whether billions, millions or percentage) is used because it’s the most appropriate one for each figure. Referring to the VAT shortfall as €0.19bn looks strange, for example. Percentages are used for a contextual comparison and to spare the reader having to compare two chunky figures.
It may be inconsistent but the alternative is to use swathes of figures – which, ultimately, would make the piece almost entirely illegible.
To answer your other question: no, the extra income tax does not cover the VAT shortfall, but the extra income made through corporation tax, excise duty, customs, stamp duty and capital acquisitions tax all cumulatively cover the shortfall, meaning the overall tax take was €263m ahead of target.
While I do see you point in the numbers being appropriate as they will show generally be comparable. It is the flippant changing from numbers to percentages in the same sentence.
Here is an example of how a paragraph above would be made 100 times easier to read and take in actual information by using some proper convention and formatting.
The State’s total expenditure stood at €25.65 Billion up from €25.43 Billion (+0.9%) on the same period last year. Current spending increased to €24 Billion from €23.2 Billion (+3.5%) but that was off set by capitol expenditure of €1.6 Billion down from €2.2 Billion (-26.4%).
See this not only lets me know the increases and decreases it also shows me them in relation to each other in a close environment.
That’s honestly a good suggestion, but it has one pitfall: our in-house style guide forbids us from using the % symbol, so it would have to become…
Sound a bit like style guides need finessing.
Can you please explain to me gavin, why did you choose the title you did? Bad news gets bigger readership, right?
Well, Market sentiment is the reason the economy is not recovering and this sentiment is driven almost solely by the media. A lot of people no longer have money to spend, but the ones that do are not spending. You, the media, should be concentrating on any good news you can get to drive market sentiment and begin the recovery of the economy.
All that money has been pumped into the banks, because the governments we elected decided that was what needed to be done. Agree or disagree, there is nothing that will change that. In future, will you please concentrate on the good news, cause we get so little of it. It’s for the good of the country!
have your say