Ebola virus outbreak

smash

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's so unlikely you can stop worrying about it now.

Still though, this is interesting:

Osterholm and other experts couldn't think of another virus that has made the transition from non-airborne to airborne in humans. They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

Every time a new person gets Ebola, the virus gets another chance to mutate and develop new capabilities. Osterholm calls it "genetic roulette."

Ebola is an RNA virus, which means every time it copies itself, it makes one or two mutations. Many of those mutations mean nothing, but some of them might be able to change the way the virus behaves inside the human body.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/

wexie

I am pie wrote: »

I suppose the best hope is that now that there is money to be made from creating a vaccination the big pharma companies will find the motivation within their sainted hearts to do so.
.

Yeah it's occurred to me that now that there's been white people killed by it all of a sudden the rush for a vaccine/cure is on where as before.......

While I appreciate how business works it makes me sad that medical research seems to be largely driven by profits rather than the betterment of humankind

ProfessorPlum

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

The movie OUTBREAK with Dustin Hoffman had it go air born.Movies cant be wrong they research things

Great!!! What did Dustin do to fix the problem? Lets get straight on to it!!

wexie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

1: A person isn't infectious until they start showing symptoms and are quickly bedridden there after. Therefore whilst they are mobile they're not infectious and afterwards they won't be walking about much.

I didn't know that, it's a good piece of information to have, I knew that once symptoms strike patients aren't mobile pretty quickly but I thought they were infectious during incubation as well.

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

Still though, this is interesting:



http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/

You're right, it could I guess however as I and others have already stated in this threads millions of people have suffered and currently suffer with HIV for example and yet I'd be willing to bet you've never once worried about that becoming airborne.

I'm not trying to have a dig at you but I really do think Outbreak has a lot to blame for people completely forgetting all the other viruses we have in the world and somehow only focusing on Ebola as the one that could go 'airborne'.

Canis Lupus

Peist2007 wrote: »

I dont think we can make any concrete assumptions on how this virus spreads. Seems to me that people wearing protective gear are getting infected. They are then immediately stated to have not been following protocols. I dont think the Spanish nurse would agree with that. I have a feeling we arent being told the full story re transmission.

I would say it's potentially difficult to remember continually to not touch your face. I would hope if I was a nurse in those situations I'd.... handcuff my arms to my belt but touching your face is such an instinctive thing that you possibly don't even realise you've done it sometimes and it's total conjecture but I guess sometimes you can be blase about how much danger you're in.

And the bit I bolded? yeah..... no :rolleyes:

Creative Juices

This thread seems to bring up the airborne fear every 2 days when the fear addicts aren't getting enough fear from the newspapers. From what I understand, there is no possibility of this virus mutating into airborne transmission. Transmission mutations like that have never happened before to any virus.

Turtwig

The best evidence we have suggests that ebola isn't transmitted through sweat. It also suggests that people have to symptomatic. Naturally the highest risk of transmission is to the front line health workers treating them. Taking this into consideration so few of them are actually affected. Protective clothing requires the clothing material to be flawless and proper procedure to be followed. Not always going to happen. It's inevitable that you'll have a small number of health worker deaths. It's also inevitable that you'll have isolated incidents in other western countries though, possibly even Ireland. With regard to a western country epidemic the key thing to note is the numbers of everyday people e.g family members of ebola patients that get affected. So far it seems to be isolated to the original ebola patients and the health care workers that treated them. This suggests that ebola, as per all previous understanding of the virus, is not actually that contagious. Yes, people are going to die but it seems to be nowhere near as penetrative an illness as other infectious diseases.

Regarding potential for mutation. Ebola's most likely beneficial mutation is one that allows the virus to stay in the human body for longer. The longer the virus remains in circulation the more chance there is of this occurring. This would make containment, and possibly treatment, that bit harder and definitely render airport screening pointless. (Though that was pointless to begin with.) I've grave concerns for the plight of the disease in countries like Liberia, or were it to infect an impoverished area in New York, or India. In general though the only concern I have about this illness is the public's irrational perception of it. Ebola - the myth- is more damaging than the virus itself it seems. Don't get wrong the outbreak in Africa is very serious, health officials have been saying so for months, but the scare mongering and borderline racism that is occurring in some places is far far worse.

The fatality rate of 70% should always take into consideration the complete breakdown of health services in the regions affected. What also shouldn't be forgotten is the shambolic state of health care in those regions prior to the outbreak. Liberia, a country with a population similar to ours had less than 200 doctors. In contrast, we with our often perceived 'third world health care' have over 15,000.

smash

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're right, it could I guess however as I and others have already stated in this threads millions of people have suffered and currently suffer with HIV for example and yet I'd be willing to bet you've never once worried about that becoming airborne.

The rate at which is spreads is the issue. HIV is only contracted through the exchange of certain bodily fluids and doesn't cause the same kind of sickness as Ebola. It's a virus that causes a sickness which spreads, incubates and kills a lot faster than HIV.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm not trying to have a dig at you but I really do think Outbreak has a lot to blame for people completely forgetting all the other viruses we have in the world and somehow only focusing on Ebola as the one that could go 'airborne'.

It's nothing to do with outbreak, there are scientists who are worried because it spreads so fast and every time it spreads it mutates.

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I would say it's potentially difficult to remember continually to not touch your face. I would hope if I was a nurse in those situations I'd.... handcuff my arms to my belt but touching your face is such an instinctive thing that you possibly don't even realise you've done it sometimes and it's total conjecture but I guess sometimes you can be blase about how much danger you're in.

And the bit I bolded? yeah..... no :rolleyes:

You're pre-supposing what that nurse did and going entirely against what she said she did. Were you there with her?

Dont know why i got a roll eyes - seems to be perfectly reasonable that they are downplaying this. Telling joe soap sitting in his trackies on his couch that a nurse wearing protective gear still caught the disease would create panic. What chance do we have if she caught it etc. So i think the view that we are being told the entire truth on this could be viewed as naive in the near future. let's face it, they lie to us about most things, why not this?

Edit: and i am not suggesting it is airborne by the way. It does seem to be particularly virulent and more contagious than is being let on.

Crane

Does anyone have any idea where we might read an intelligent and measured forum discussion of this outbreak? On boards.ie or elsewhere? Every few days (as stated above) the airborne, doomsday etc scenarios get rebooted in this thread, perhaps by people just opportunistically clicking on the thread rather than following it properly. Makes for a pretty frustrating read - neither 'side' (pessimistic vs optimistic outcome of the outbreak) gets a proper airing as a result.

Creative Juices

When it comes to viruses, it is always difficult to predict what they can or cannot do. It is instructive, however, to see what viruses have done in the past, and use that information to guide our thinking. Therefore we can ask: has any human virus ever changed its mode of transmission?

The answer is no. We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we've never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted.

HIV-1 has infected millions of humans since the early 1900s. It is still transmitted among humans by introduction of the virus into the body by sex, contaminated needles, or during childbirth.

Hepatitis C virus has infected millions of humans since its discovery in the 1980s. It is still transmitted among humans by introduction of the virus into the body by contaminated needles, blood, and during birth.

There is no reason to believe that Ebola virus is any different from any of the viruses that infect humans and have not changed the way that they are spread.

I am fully aware that we can never rule out what a virus might or might not do. But the likelihood that Ebola virus will go airborne is so remote that we should not use it to frighten people. We need to focus on stopping the epidemic, which in itself is a huge job.

Akrasia

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Great!!! What did Dustin do to fix the problem? Lets get straight on to it!!

He had a silly helicopter chase scene, we should have one of those.

Creative Juices

Crane wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea where we might read an intelligent and measured forum discussion of this outbreak? On boards.ie or elsewhere? Every few days (as stated above) the airborne, doomsday etc scenarios get rebooted in this thread, perhaps by people just opportunistically clicking on the thread rather than following it properly. Makes for a pretty frustrating read - neither 'side' (pessimistic vs optimistic outcome of the outbreak) gets a proper airing as a result.

I agree. I am surprised there isn't another ebola thread somewhere for people that are more "clued in". This is After Hours. I remember when the Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, there were 2 threads - 1 in AH and 1 in Aviation. The latter was full of informed debate, the former was full of nutjobs.

Peist2007

Creative Juices wrote: »

I agree. I am surprised there isn't another ebola thread somewhere for people that all just agree with me and my point of view. This is After Hours. I remember when the Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, there were 2 threads - 1 in AH and 1 in Aviation. The latter was full of people who agreed with me, the former was full of nutjobs.

FYP

WakeUp

if the world wants to contain this we need to start listening to people with experience on the ground of what we are dealing with and know what they are talking about.

_______________________________________________________

Imagine Tomislav Prvulovic’s quandry. He has spent a lifetime fighting Ebola and other infectious diseases, and what he sees out of Africa has him frustrated.

"He cannot sleep at night," said his wife, Zivka. When her husband, an infectious-disease expert who fought the virus in Central Africa in the late 1980s, watches the news about this latest outbreak, he gets so upset he nearly cries, she said.

He has specific suggestions on ways the authorities can help contain the deadly virus.

"Don’t consider it someone else’s headache. We’re just one flight away from the epicenter of Ebola," he reminds anyone who will listen.

Prvulovic was part of the international team that eradicated small pox decades ago, and worked in 50 countries over a long career that included fighting the plague as well. He was trained as a doctor in his native Serbia, then earned a master’s in public health in the United States.

He worries that the precautions only now being imposed are too little, too late. Given his firsthand view of lethal infectious diseases, here’s what he’d like to shout from the rooftop of his West Orange townhouse:

• African authorities should cordon off any hospital treating an Ebola victim, using police or the military if necessary. No relatives allowed in to visit, no health workers allowed out. Any item that goes out of the hospital — clothes, equipment, garbage — needs to be burned. Bodies of the deceased should be cremated if possible.

• International flights into and out of the affected countries should be banned for all but emergency travel. Forget tourism; now is not the time.

 Global health agencies should hire African doctors from Somalia and the former Zaire — who have experience with Ebola — and deploy them in the West African countries which have never seen the deadly virus before.

He said he knows what happens when poor villagers get felled by the disease. Their relatives wash the body, as custom dictates, then may bury it in a shallow grave. Sooner or later stray dogs dig up the bloody corpse, making for an ideal way to spread the epidemic. He said he saw it all when he was stationed in Brazzaville, in the Republic of the Congo.

"I’m depressed that nobody is doing it right," he said of the efforts now underway in the global crisis. "
http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/08/nj_ebola_expert_recalls_earlier_outbreak_alarmed_about_current_spread.html

that seems like common sense to me.

Maximus Alexander

realweirdo wrote: »

Ebola makes HIV look benign in comparison.

Only in terms of the horrific sounding symptoms. HIV has a higher reproductive rate as I have pointed out already and was a death sentence in the west when it first emerged. Indeed it still is in much of Africa.

Ebola sucks, but some people are getting carried away with it - it's not Captain Trips.

ceadaoin.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Rubbish. Ebola has about the same reproductive rate as HIV and a similar mode of transmission. The western world has been rife with HIV carriers for a couple of decades now, and instead of dying or becoming non-contagious in a matter of weeks, they stick around for years or even decades.

Have you managed to avoid HIV so far?

Can you catch HIV from touching a surface and then touching your face? Or from being within 3 feet of a person with HIV? No, ebola is a lot easier to catch than HIV.

From http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/questions-rise-on-preparations-at-hospitals-to-deal-with-ebola.html?referrer=

At the peak of illness, an Ebola patient can have 10 billion viral particles in one-fifth of a teaspoon of blood. That compares with 50,000 to 100,000 particles in an untreated H.I.V. patient, and five million to 20 million in someone with untreated hepatitis C.

“That helped us to understand why, if this is only spread by body fluids, why it is more contagious than hepatitis A, B and C, and H.I.V.,” Dr. Ribner said. “It’s just that there’s so much more virus in the fluids they put out.”

Canis Lupus

Peist2007 wrote: »

You're pre-supposing what that nurse did and going entirely against what she said she did. Were you there with her?

That's why I used words like potentially and conjecture. There was a failure in equipment or protocol somewhere along the line either way.

Dont know why i got a roll eyes

Because I've no time to listen to how 'the man' is lying to us. That's what the CT forum is for.

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

The rate at which is spreads is the issue. HIV is only contracted through the exchange of certain bodily fluids and doesn't cause the same kind of sickness as Ebola. It's a virus that causes a sickness which spreads, incubates and kills a lot faster than HIV.


It's nothing to do with outbreak, there are scientists who are worried because it spreads so fast and every time it spreads it mutates.

*shrugs* like I said I'm no expert but I haven't read anything to suggest it will be the first virus to mutate to airborne so it's not really on my concern radar.

Maximus Alexander

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you catch HIV from touching a surface and then touching your face? Or from being within 3 feet of a person with HIV? No, ebola is a lot easier to catch than HIV.

From http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/questions-rise-on-preparations-at-hospitals-to-deal-with-ebola.html?referrer=

Again, as scary as that all sounds:

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20894 wrote:

The effective reproduction number, Rt, of Ebola virus disease was estimated using country-specific data reported from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone to the World Health Organization from March to August, 2014. Rt for the three countries lies consistently above 1.0 since June 2014. Country-specific Rt for Liberia and Sierra Leone have lied between 1.0 and 2.0. Rt<2 indicate that control could be attained by preventing over half of the secondary transmissions per primary case.

Rt for HIV is estimated between 2 and 5. It presumably helps that people with ebola are visibly pretty horribly ill, or else dead whilst contagious, while people with HIV aren't, so you're less likely to douse yourself in an ebola victim's bodily fluids.

Either way, the result is that someone with HIV infects more people than someone with ebola, yet after a few decades we haven't all become infected.

As tragic as it is for the victims, the number of people who have contracted or died of ebola is beyond minuscule when compared with other diseases. It's great that the WHO, the UN and the CDC are taking it seriously and responding as necessary to prevent it spreading, but the media frenzy is leaving some people with the impression that we're on the verge of a global pandemic that with wipe out half the population. Thankfully that's not realistic at all.

I am pie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's why I used words like potentially and conjecture. There was a failure in equipment or protocol somewhere along the line either way.



Because I've no time to listen to how 'the man' is lying to us. That's what the CT forum is for.

I don't think we are talking about "the man" , a term which you have inserted into the discussion, or anyone "lying" , again a fairly emotive term.

It's not beyond the balance of probability that the medical teams working in a myriad of different conditions are still analysing the current epidemic and understanding the transmission method.

It's hardly appropriate for them to publish every unproven suspicion they may have and it's not impossible that post epidemic they may publish discoveries related to the transmission method. In fairness I have yet to see a crystal clear definition of that process and indeed have read a variety of contradicting reports.

Is that really tin foil hat material? I don't believe so and the lack of a concrete definition of the transmission process outside of reposted newspaper articles certainly contributes.

smash

Canis Lupus wrote: »

*shrugs* like I said I'm no expert but I haven't read anything to suggest it will be the first virus to mutate to airborne so it's not really on my concern radar.

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

Osterholm and other experts couldn't think of another virus that has made the transition from non-airborne to airborne in humans. They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

ceadaoin.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Again, as scary as that all sounds:



Rt for HIV is estimated between 2 and 5. It presumably helps that people with ebola are visibly pretty horribly ill, or else dead whilst contagious, while people with HIV aren't, so you're less likely to douse yourself in an ebola victim's bodily fluids.

Either way, the result is that someone with HIV infects more people than someone with ebola, yet after a few decades we haven't all become infected.

As tragic as it is for the victims, the number of people who have contracted or died of ebola is beyond minuscule when compared with other diseases. It's great that the WHO, the UN and the CDC are taking it seriously and responding as necessary to prevent it spreading, but the media frenzy is leaving some people with the impression that we're on the verge of a global pandemic that with wipe out half the population. Thankfully that's not realistic at all.

Well people with HIV have more time to spread the virus as you can live for years with HIV and still be reasonably healthy. It also needs a lot more of the virus to enter your blood to infect you. There you have a doctor stating that ebola is more contagious than HIV and hepatitis. So far thomas Duncan has infected 2 people. If the reports of the way the hospital managed his case are true then there are bound to be more. It's rare for a healthcare worker to become infected with any of the other viruses mentioned from simply treating a patient.

I thought we were past the point of stating that you have to 'douse yourself in an ebola victims bodily fluids' to become infected. A cursory reading of the facts will clarify that.

Canis Lupus

I am pie wrote: »

I don't think we are talking about "the man" , a term which you have inserted into the discussion, or anyone "lying" , again a fairly emotive term.

It's not beyond the balance of probability that the medical teams working in a myriad of different conditions are still analysing the current epidemic and understanding the transmission method.

It's hardly appropriate for them to publish every unproven suspicion they may have and it's not impossible that post epidemic they may publish discoveries related to the transmission method. In fairness I have yet to see a crystal clear definition of that process and indeed have read a variety of contradicting reports.

Is that really tin foil hat material? I don't believe so and the lack of a concrete definition of the transmission process outside of reposted newspaper articles certainly contributes.

But then I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Peist who said:

I have a feeling we arent being told the full story re transmission.

and

So i think the view that we are being told the entire truth on this could be viewed as naive in the near future. let's face it, they lie to us about most things, why not this?

There's a distinct difference between his and your posts. One is lack of knowledge and the other is intentional misinformation.

Crane

smash wrote: »

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

Of course the likelihood increases. The likelihood increases for every virus that is allowed to spread and mutate in its spreading. This still does not suggest that ebola will be the first virus to mutate and change its form of transmission.

Another quote from the article you mention:

"Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence."

I am pie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But then I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Peist who said:



and



There's a distinct difference between his and your posts. One is lack of knowledge and the other is intentional misinformation.

It would be nice to see some concrete information to fill that knowledge gap, it would certainly quash the wild speculation.

WakeUp

Crane wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea where we might read an intelligent and measured forum discussion of this outbreak? On boards.ie or elsewhere? Every few days (as stated above) the airborne, doomsday etc scenarios get rebooted in this thread, perhaps by people just opportunistically clicking on the thread rather than following it properly. Makes for a pretty frustrating read - neither 'side' (pessimistic vs optimistic outcome of the outbreak) gets a proper airing as a result.

Creative Juices wrote: »

I agree. I am surprised there isn't another ebola thread somewhere for people that are more "clued in". This is After Hours. I remember when the Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, there were 2 threads - 1 in AH and 1 in Aviation. The latter was full of informed debate, the former was full of nutjobs.

so why dont the pair of you know it alls start your own thread then? seems like you have it both figured out .considering this thread isnt intelligent enough for you and you two are so "clued" in. when will you be bestowing your obvious wealth of knowledge on this topic upon the rest of us? if this thread isnt up to your all knowing and knowledgeable standards, and you arent going to start your own , you might find more "intelligent" "clued in" debate here. your superior levels and all that.

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

Yeah but do we have even a best guess at that chance in numbers? He doesn't mention anything really just that the chance increases. So I could say for example the current chance for it to 'go airborne' is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and in a years time with all the new cases it will increase to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Not really scary is it. That article really reads more like making news for the sake of it.

I'll just repeat I'm not concerned. If you want to be, go right ahead.

smash

Crane wrote: »

Of course the likelihood increases. The likelihood increases for every virus that is allowed to spread and mutate in its spreading. This still does not suggest that ebola will be the first virus to mutate and change its form of transmission.

Another quote from the article you mention:

"Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence."

Yes it's speculation and yes it does not mean it will be the first virus to mutate but the bottom line is that the likelihood increases all the time.