Ebola virus

[justfrank44]

Do you understand what expontial means?

Ebola is unique in that it kills most but not all its victims
Incubation period is fairly long
Difficult to detect
Difficult to control
Has existed for a while but difficuot to find cure

Most other deadly viruses are understood better, controlled better, detected better ....

I wonder do you know what it means?

It is hardly unique in this

Detection seems to be fairly easy actually,
It is easy enough to control if you have the co-operation of the public and good health services, neither of which you can say is true in the countries worst affected so far.
Has only been "discovered" 40/50 years ago and was not sudied because there were no large instances of infection until now.
And remember , there are treatments in place now that improve the victims chances of survival.
The main thing to do is stop panicking, until your neighbours start falling in the streets. Because there is feck all point worrying about.

[Stephanie]

"All of us emit aerosols when we speak, breathe, sneeze, or cough. If we are infected with a respiratory virus such as influenza virus, the aerosols contain virus particles. Depending on their size, aerosols may travel long distances, and when inhaled they lodge on mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract, initiating an infection.

Viral transmission can also occur when virus-containing respiratory droplets travel from the respiratory tract of an infected person to mucosal surfaces of another person. Because these droplets are larger, they cannot travel long distances as do aerosols, and are considered a form of contact transmission. Ebola virus can certainly be transmitted from person to person by droplets."


http://www.virology.ws/2014/09/27/tr...f-ebola-virus/


With a thanks to Justfrank44 , who originally posted the above link a few days ago on my own thread re this subject x

Website : VirologyBlog (about viruses and viral diseases)

[justfrank44]

"All of us emit aerosols when we speak, breathe, sneeze, or cough. If we are infected with a respiratory virus such as influenza virus, the aerosols contain virus particles. Depending on their size, aerosols may travel long distances, and when inhaled they lodge on mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract, initiating an infection.

Viral transmission can also occur when virus-containing respiratory droplets travel from the respiratory tract of an infected person to mucosal surfaces of another person. Because these droplets are larger, they cannot travel long distances as do aerosols, and are considered a form of contact transmission. Ebola virus can certainly be transmitted from person to person by droplets."


http://www.virology.ws/2014/09/27/tr...f-ebola-virus/


With a thanks to Justfrank44 , who originally posted the above link a few days ago on my own thread re this subject x

Website : VirologyBlog (about viruses and viral diseases)

The EXPERTS seem to think that these droplets have to get into the eyes, open wounds etc, that this risk is minimal for the general public, and that there is no reason to PANIC.

[Stephanie]

The EXPERTS seem to think that these droplets have to get into the eyes, open wounds etc, that this risk is minimal for the general public, and that there is no reason to PANIC.

I agree. Never argued otherwise :

These infectious droplets ( sneeze , cough ) cannot travel very far , only three feet or so , and it would require you

inhaling these droplets , or these droplets getting in your eyes , or landing on your skin and either you having an

abrasion or later touching your face / mouth / rub your eyes etc. for infection transfer to occur ; lots of If's.

(We all touch our faces many many times within an hour. Try to count it once x )

Still this information has not been made available to the public up til the most recent days , and even now it is not

emphasised , and that just irks me. I've been saying it from day one !

What's been officially said til now , is that it can only be spread by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person.

And that is misleading to laypeople , to the public at large.

I feel there is an intentional , methodical downplaying , and dissemination of misleading and inaccurate information.

The statement that "it is difficult to catch" is simply not true. For now it is difficult to catch only because it is unlikely

that the guy next to you has it. However , if your seat mate on the flight does have it , and is in the stages of having

symptoms and thus contagious , then by god , it is not difficult to catch.

Further , the statement that it can be caught only by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person , has lead

people to believe that they would have to be in direct contact with an infected person. That is also untrue , as the virus

can survive for several hours outside the body in a dry state , and can survive for several days outside the body

if it is in a liquid at room temperature. (Snot on a table etc. ) >> then you come along , touch it , etc.

It is the purposeful massaging of information that has had me going all out on this subject.

It upsets me to see false information fed out.


Thankfully for now it is only an academic discussion / perhaps disagreement we're having. Hope that's all it will stay.

Btw , did you hear about the case last week at Beaumont Dublin ? And how it was handled ?

Now that really upset me.

.

[justfrank44]

I agree. Never argued otherwise :

These infectious droplets ( sneeze , cough ) cannot travel very far , only three feet or so , and it would require you

inhaling these droplets , or these droplets getting in your eyes , or landing on your skin and either you having an

abrasion or later touching your face / mouth / rub your eyes etc. for infection transfer to occur ; lots of If's.

(We all touch our faces many many times within an hour. Try to count it once x )

Still this information has not been made available to the public up til the most recent days , and even now it is not

emphasised , and that just irks me. I've been saying it from day one !

What's been officially said til now , is that it can only be spread by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person.

And that is misleading to laypeople , to the public at large.

I feel there is an intentional , methodical downplaying , and dissemination of misleading and inaccurate information.

The statement that "it is difficult to catch" is simply not true. For now it is difficult to catch only because it is unlikely

that the guy next to you has it. However , if your seat mate on the flight does have it , and is in the stages of having

symptoms and thus contagious , then by god , it is not difficult to catch.

Further , the statement that it can be caught only by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person , has lead

people to believe that they would have to be in direct contact with an infected person. That is also untrue , as the virus

can survive for several hours outside the body in a dry state , and can survive for several days outside the body

if it is in a liquid at room temperature. (Snot on a table etc. ) >> then you come along , touch it , etc.

It is the purposeful massaging of information that has had me going all out on this subject.

It upsets me to see false information fed out.


Thankfully for now it is only an academic discussion / perhaps disagreement we're having. Hope that's all it will stay.

Btw , did you hear about the case last week at Beaumont Dublin ? And how it was handled ?

Now that really upset me.

.

Are you saying that you think that the powers that be are trying to water down the threat of ebola? If so , why do you think that?
And I've no idea what happened in the beaumont.

[gonzo76]

This about sums it all up really.

[Melindablondey]

I agree. Never argued otherwise :

These infectious droplets ( sneeze , cough ) cannot travel very far , only three feet or so , and it would require you

inhaling these droplets , or these droplets getting in your eyes , or landing on your skin and either you having an

abrasion or later touching your face / mouth / rub your eyes etc. for infection transfer to occur ; lots of If's.

(We all touch our faces many many times within an hour. Try to count it once x )

Still this information has not been made available to the public up til the most recent days , and even now it is not

emphasised , and that just irks me. I've been saying it from day one !

What's been officially said til now , is that it can only be spread by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person.

And that is misleading to laypeople , to the public at large.

I feel there is an intentional , methodical downplaying , and dissemination of misleading and inaccurate information.

The statement that "it is difficult to catch" is simply not true. For now it is difficult to catch only because it is unlikely

that the guy next to you has it. However , if your seat mate on the flight does have it , and is in the stages of having

symptoms and thus contagious , then by god , it is not difficult to catch.

Further , the statement that it can be caught only by direct contact with infectious bodily fluids of a sick person , has lead

people to believe that they would have to be in direct contact with an infected person. That is also untrue , as the virus

can survive for several hours outside the body in a dry state , and can survive for several days outside the body

if it is in a liquid at room temperature. (Snot on a table etc. ) >> then you come along , touch it , etc.

It is the purposeful massaging of information that has had me going all out on this subject.

It upsets me to see false information fed out.


Thankfully for now it is only an academic discussion / perhaps disagreement we're having. Hope that's all it will stay.

Btw , did you hear about the case last week at Beaumont Dublin ? And how it was handled ?

Now that really upset me.

.

I didnt hear any thing on the news about that case in beaumont is it true thanks x x x

[Dub Lad]

I would say the US has handled Ebola horrendously, second nurse has ebola, caught it from a patient then decides to take a commerical flight, I hope to god those flight passengers are caught in time

[Stephanie]

Are you saying that you think that the powers that be are trying to water down the threat of ebola? If so , why do you think that?

Prob because they're scared , because they don't have the answers , and in an effort to prevent panic.

Even the US is not prepared for an outbreak.

In the US today there are 19 beds (!!!!!) available for Ebola patients !!!

In the whole country there are only four hospitals specifically prepared to handle such highly infectious diseases .

AND in those four hospitals they have 19 (!!) beds altogether , safety qualified to treat Ebola patients.

( Three hospitals have three beds each : Montana , Maryland , Georgia ; and Nebraska has 10. But ! Nebraska can only

treat two patients at most at any given time , due to limitations in hazardous waste removal etc. , which means there

really are only 11 beds in the whole country ! )

Now CDC putting together Ebola Response teams to be ready to be dispatched to anywhere in the country , so it is not the

local healthcare workers ( lacking proper training ) who will treat these patients , but the crack team of CDC.

(In Dallas second nurse has tested positive)

And I've no idea what happened in the beaumont.

I didnt hear any thing on the news about that case in beaumont is it true thanks x x x

Last week a patient suspected of Ebola was transported to Beaumont Dublin by ambulance , but once there nobody knew

what to do with him. They ended up emptying a smoking room and put the patient into isolation in that room.

The hospital is utterly unprepared to handle a case.

The patient was a Google guy returning fom an overseas conference.


And here : the second nurse in Texas who is now ill with ebola , took a trip just before becoming ill. She flew from Dallas

to (I forget where) on Oct 11th , and took a return flight back to Dallas on the 13th. She became ill the following day ,

presenting with a fever. She was not supposed to fly , but she did. Now CDC is tracking down all the 100some passengers ,

and presumably will be putting them under observation. (!!) Think about it ! If it's no threat , why bother ?


I think one of the biggest problems we'll have is human compliance : just last week a doctor (part of the team of the cameraman who became infected while reporting from Liberia) were supposed to be under voluntary quarantine. She is a doctor (!) and decided to go and fetch a takeout. Now she and the whole team is under involuntary quarantine. In US.

Now this second nurse who is infected , was supposed to be under voluntary observation (monitoring her own temperature) , and was supposed to stay put. She decided to take a commercial flight.

Further : if you were in Liberia , for example , and you suspected that you might have slipped up and got exposed ,
Wouldn't you try and just try to get to a First World country before your symptoms popped up ? Have much better chance of survival in States , UK , France , etc. , than you would in a tent or on the street in Freetown or Monrovia. If the nice people at the airport asked you if you'd been around sick people , would you tell 'em ? Life or death. : yours.

Just food for thought , this last bit detached academic discussion.

[Stephanie]

I would say the US has handled Ebola horrendously, second nurse has ebola, caught it from a patient then decides to take a commerical flight, I hope to god those flight passengers are caught in time

I agree !

Even now they're still messing up ( though they're on the right track with the dedicated CDC Ebola Swat Teams in US ) .