<p>A ban on travelers coming to the U. S. from the affected countries makes sense. Passport stamps have dates. If you’ve been in Liberia or the other countries within 21 days from the time you try to enter the U. S., you are turned away. The airline wouldn’t let you on for the flight to the U. S. </p>
<p>My, this makes me think I will be QUITE CAUTIOUS when I travel to foreign countries–especially as far as ingesting any meats–maybe sticking strictly to cooked vegetables I can readily identify. I guess that’s another advantage of sticking with travel mostly in the US. </p>
<p>Good article, BBurner. Thanks for posting it. Lots of food for thought.</p>
<p>What did you mean by “sanitation” then?</p>
<p>Quarantining people in private homes in gated communities. Why? If at the same time we are being told a little bleach solves the problem. The next guy is going to want a private home, too. I mean a good samaritan can do what they want but a caravan to nicer location doesn’t exactly say it’s safe here. And, it’s an apartment building. Other people live there and had to step over the vomit on the stoop, too.</p>
<p>I don’t see the big deal with a travel ban. But, I don’t think it’s going to happen, either…</p>
<p>
Well that’s an interesting point in that, so far we apparently only have history of it in African species and have no idea about how it might be picked up here. If Texas bats and other rodents are not susceptible to being carriers, at least it would not be likely to spread by those mechanisms. </p>
<p>Well at a private gated home they will be able to walk around and maybe go outside w/o reporters 24/7. I agree it isn’t any kind of a plan but I also think it’s better than having them stay there with 4 people in a small, likely 1 bathroom apartment. I wonder if they will have someone stay there to monitor temps etc. That would be more feasible in a known clean, safe and likely large place.</p>
<p>Dr Sanjay (are we all quoting him now?) said the virus is rather weak and even common detergent will kill it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. This is a great example of how we have lost the sense of what it means to be a sovereign nation, and leadership has forgotten that the first edict of government is to protect its citizenry and its borders from harm, whatever that harm may be. </p>
<p>What I read is that no place would take in the 4 people who had been exposed to Ebola by the hospitalized patient–but it appears this good samaritan appeared and offered a place. Yes, steps need to be in place for future situations as one cannot expect such good fortune just because there is no other plan. Either a dwelling can or cannot be adequately sanitized so that loved ones of a patient can safely remain in the dwelling after the sanitization. We do seem to be getting some mixed messages here. In any case, there was no reason that those people should have been forced to remain in the apartment without instructions and materials to sanitize the unit and/or having it sanitized for them as soon as Ebola was confirmed rather than so many days later. </p>
<p>The way this was handled does NOT inspire confidence inn anyone.</p>
<p>There was a press release that the case in Maryland is Malaria, not Ebola. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A very understandable assumption and excellent advice, but there is still an unknown. </p>
<p>I purposely stayed out of the science discussion because it can get into the weeds, but there seems to be something slightly amiss. </p>
<p>We know that medical personnel in protective gear are catching the disease, and we also know the hospitals there are using similar, if not the same, disinfectant etc. And note that the rate of the medical personnel infection seems to be increasing. So why the continued transmission, outside of total isolation?</p>
<p>The answer lies in the fact that Ebola is a virus, not a bacteria. A virus does not have it owns DNA machinery. It inserts a piece of DNA into a the host cell, which gets incorporated in the the host cell’s DNA. The PCR test is what measures the amount intact Ebola DNA.</p>
<p>Bleach works by denaturing and cleaving DNA strands, and thus is effective on any DNA. The problem though is nothing is 100%, and no one knows the actual size of the DNA that is the “active” sequence of the Ebola infection. They do not know the sequence of base-pairs, which when incorporated cause disease. They just know the overall virus DNA, which then allows for a PCR test. </p>
<p>Therefore, it is very possible only a few hundred base-pairs or even less are the culprit, as many diseases are the result of only 10 to 30 base-pairs insertions into the host DNA. So, even if bleach dentures the Ebola DNA, it is still unknown if bleach actually splits and deactivates the active set of base-pairs that causes the disease. If the denaturing point is upstream from the primer and downstream from stop sequence, then the infectious part of the Ebola would still be intact. Bleach does damage the Ebola DNA (has too), but no one knows the efficacy of such a spilt and deactivation. At least not yet. </p>
<p>Bleach does do one thing very important - it reduces the amount of active virus DNA per ml of fluid and given that successful incorporation of any DNA requires a specific concentration of intact DNA, the bleach definitely reduces chances of infection by many multiples. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, bleach does not reduce the need for hazmat suits and the like. Until more is known, bleach should be seen only as a first step in eradicating the infectious Ebola DNA from an area. And to be safe, areas should be bleached thoroughly two or three times before used again. Plus, bed sheets, clothes, pillows, towels really should be thrown away because it is easy for intact virus to live within molecules of the fabric and get protected by being surrounded by water molecules, and not affected by bleach in the washer.</p>
<p>I suspect this is why the CDC is not running around saying bleach is a cure-all.</p>
<p>Are the 4 family members still healthy at this point?</p>
<p>“We know that medical personnel in protective gear are catching the disease, and we also know the hospitals there are using similar, if not the same, disinfectant etc. And note that the rate of the medical personnel infection seems to be increasing.”</p>
<p>The medical personnel are not walking around in protective gear all day long. They live in the community and eat there, too. The community of very uneducated people who We also know that the typical
conditions that they have to work in are far, far from the conditions of even the worst, dirtiest ER in the US.</p>
<p>I do not even know where to start with your viral DNA story… First of all, Ebola is an RNA virus!!! RNA is so much flimsier than DNA. </p>
<p>Am quite sure there would have been a BIG hue & cry if any of those 4 family members showed any signs of illness.</p>
<p>“Plus, bed sheets, clothes, pillows, towels really should be thrown away because it is easy for intact virus to live within molecules of the fabric and get protected by being surrounded by water molecules, and not affected by bleach in the washer.”</p>
<p>That is nonsense. I just read that to 2 PhD chemists and they laughed! 
The items have to be thrown away because 10% bleach will deatroy the fabric and make them unusable. </p>
<p>That’s great. I’m praying for that family, specially that 13year old boy. What a nightmare this must be for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not notice it was a 10% bleach that was recommended. I assume that was mentioned earlier in the thread then, as that 10% concentration is not mentioned in @Flossy’s post. </p>
<p>I was assuming the standard lower concentration of bleach, which is normally used in the wash, as the sick person’s relatives might think of doing. That is who we have to think of here. These people are probably not thinking of destroying their clothes and linens etc., which they really should. </p>
<p>However, you actually support the point I was making. One really should destroy the fabric to ensure eradication and be very careful of porous surfaces. Anything short of that is the unknown. In short, a 10% bleach is equivalent of throwing it away. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine any rational reason for objecting to a travel ban from the few countries that are affected by Ebola. The rationale that it would be a problem getting help into that country? A travel ban FROM those countries, not to them. If someone goes in there as an aid worker, they get an exemption (after a quarantine period) to come back into the US. These are long flights and even if someone may not appear sick at the departure airport, they could be sick and spreading it, by the time they land. This is just insane. I know we’d all like to pretend that Ebola is no big deal, and certainly not a threat to this anyone in this country, but going along with the, “Nobody panic, it will all be fine. You are just uneducated and overreacting if you are concerned about this,” is ridiculous. Trust the government, the CDC, they’re all going to take care of us. How many days did it take them to clean up contaminants? These people are not competent enough to take care of something in a quick manner.</p>
<p>The point is to take obvious, direct steps to contain something before it becomes a problem. This is a simple, obvious thing they can do. Sure, people may circumvent the system, but if you make it more difficult, less people will. You send a message. If you sneak it this country from an Ebola infected region, you will be arrested and put into isolation. This guy in Texas, who here would do this to their loved ones? Have direct exposure to Ebola, and come on over to their loved one, and CHILDREN, and expose them? None of us here. None. We would stay put, or stay away, for however long it took. Makes you wonder about this guys story about getting it from the pregnant woman. How can we believe what he says, that he was doing something heroic by carrying her, as opposed to the possibility that this was his girlfriend, and he contracted it by sleeping with her? If you would knowingly expose your loved ones to this disease, you could be capable of doing anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just read it to a third Ph.D. chemist, and he laughed, too, BB.</p>
<p>Are these people even his loved ones? We have the girlfriend of a guy who some say had never been in the US and a 35-year old woman who I think is the girlfriend daughter and a 13-year old boy who I’m guessing is the daughter’s son and a 20-year old young man who is the son of a guy in Phoenix who called the CDC about suspected Ebola being missed at the hospital and then called CNN to complain about the health department not cleaning the apartment well enough. Call me confused and slightly skeptical about the whole story.</p>
<p>Edit to add - Okay the 35-year old daughter popped in and out and called the ambulance but apparently is not quarantined. It’s the girlfriend, her son, and two nephews. More confused, now.</p>