<p>I am surprised about the amount of alarm on this thread. I haven’t really been following the thread, but I just got back from three days in Dallas and thought I would see what’s up. Even in Dallas people don’t seem panicked. </p>
<p>Nrdsb, your dog is smarter than many people. 
Give him/her a treat from Aunt Romani </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The vomit was not cleaned up from the parking lot for four days What is the chance rats/mice didn’t get to it? What is the chance if they got to it and didn’t get infected? I give about 90% they got to it and another 8-90% chance they got infected. So more likely than not at about 70%. If you give 50% chance they didn’t get to it and had only 50% chance of infection by directly digesting it, you come with 25%, leass than likely. To be less than likely, the chance of rats/mice getting to it less than 70% and chance of infection eating it less than 70%. I wouldn’t be surprised if the infection rate is closer to 100% from digesting it and chances of rats and moces finding it well over 50%. I hope I am wrong.</p>
<p>Flossy, so in your view, they were just to be left isolated with a bunch of soiled bedding and towels for 21 days? As punishment? </p>
<p>Then let’s take the issue of food. The family was not to leave the apartment, nor were they to allow anyone in. How were they supposed to get food to last them for 21 days? </p>
<p>Last I looked you could not get Hepa C or AIDs from direct skin contact. It’s hard to get Hepa C even if you share an infected person’s toothbrush.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are the cahnces mice/rats get infected if they digest it? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s near 100%. All you need to get to more likely than not is to decide if rats/mice were more than likely got ot it on the first night or two? I’d say yes. They are smart.</p>
<p>We have completely different lifestyles than they do in West Africa, that I think puts us at far more risk of spreading disease. We are incredibly mobile, leaving our bodily fluids everywhere, not just in our small communities or homes. I’ve been on the road the last week, and when you think of it, it’s rather gross. Riding the Bart, touching and sitting on surfaces (in shorts), my body touching things other sweaty, nose picking, coughing people have. And hotel rooms? Ugh, potential bodily fluids everywhere.</p>
<p>Now I’m not really worried about this, I hate the exposure to colds and the flu. Sick people travel, go to work, touch your food plate and glasses. Bodily fluids everywhere, and if disease can live outside the host for more than a couple of seconds, that’s a problem. One sick person could leave their fluids all over the country in a day. So I’m thinking that the safest action is to always make sure wine is in that glass, as a preventive measure of course, because alcohol kills everything, doesn’t it? 
</p>
<p>@LasMa </p>
<p>No, but this is all being grossly exaggerated. We know they were being visited daily and being monitored by health officials. We also know there were guards stationed outside because they refused to comply with the quarantine and exposed 100 other people including schoolchildren to a deadly virus. We also know sandwiches were shipped in at least once so let’s not pretend Texas was trying to starve them to death. That said, I’m sure it was unpleasant. Of course, it’s not punishment. It’s called a quarantine. If the patient lives, it seems his home country is very interested in pursuing punishment, though. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just any illness caused by any foreign organism will do. Showing symptoms means shedding in any form has begun. Is it not? Is it that hard to understand? Why else our body react?</p>
<p>About enterovirus 68, I am actually worried about it - it’s in our area. I started a thread on it days ago but I guess no one is interested in discussing it here.</p>
<p>“What are the cahnces mice/rats get infected if they digest it? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s near 100%.”</p>
<p>Igloo, just stop and think for a minute before posting things like “100%” - if mice and rats and flies and the like worked as reservoirs and transmitted Ebola, the entire African population would be decimated by now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on some of your posts, it seems you clearly DON’T understand much about epidemiology, which is ok. But any pronouncements you make about this or any other disease are suspect and people reading this thread would be wise to keep that in mind.</p>
<p>For the second time, you cannot use any other contagious disease as a model for how to look at ebola. Each disease behaves how IT behaves, not necessarily how another disease behaves. Influenza was a very good example of that difference.</p>
<p>So are you saying our body reacts well before shedding starts? How do the body know when to react if shedding hasn’t begun? Enlighten me since I know nothing.</p>
<p>^^^^What the heck are you talking about?!</p>
<p>
Well, you could hardly expect a thread to reach 45 pages if people just post stuff like “I’m calm” “I’m not worried” “Everyone’s doing a great job”
:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who’s shrilling now? I said NEAR 100%. Duncan contracted the disease just by carrying the sick neighbor. In the taxi to the hospital he was sitting in front, not with the patient. Let me know if it is unreasonable to assume NEAR 100% infection if you consume contaminated waste.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you missed the part where I asked for a citation.</p>
<p>If humans consumed the waste, we may expect a high infection rate. But not if rats and mice consumed the waste, they may or may not be a potential reservoir but does not mean it is as easy for them to be infected.</p>
<p>My dog literally just unplugged my computer. I am not kidding! LOLOL. He doesn’t know that cord has been charging my battery. :D</p>
<p>Guess I better take him for a walk.</p>
<p>Keep up the good work, folks!</p>
<p>Nrdsb, I give up. Earlier you said Ebola virus didn’t start shedding in patients with first symptoms. So how does our body know to react and show symptoms? Isn’t any symptom a reaction to increased amount of foreign organisms in the body?</p>