<p>In regards to HIV, it would not matter if the patient is vomiting and actively spewing fluids. It still would not infect in 99+% of the cases.</p>
<p>The major difference is HIV is a blood-borne disease. Therefore, the skin, if healthy and unbroken, is a very effective barrier to preventing infection. Even the mouth and saliva are effective barriers against HIV. To catch HIV from kissing requires open sores in the mouth of both parties to even give a very small chance of infection. HIV does not even survive in sweat - that is why Magic Jonson played basketball, while HIV+. So touching a sweating person with HIV is not an issue to be concerned with and shaking hands is just fine. </p>
<p>Ebola is a totally different “animal.” The skin, even if healthy and unbroken, is not an effective in stopping Ebola infection. Simple contact of the virus with any part of the body can cause infection. And the Ebola does survive in sweat, saliva and other body fluids and thus every fluid produced by the body can cause infection. </p>
<p>As @garland noted, HIV infection requires actual invasive insertion of virus into the body, past the skin and into the circulatory system.</p>
<p>I think this was asked about earlier. Duncan is not receiving experimental medication, only supportive care. It’s feared the medication would make him worse.</p>
<p>Borrowing the phrase “in theory”: Although it is not airborne in theory, I’d think spewed material can form micro droplets and float in the air, especially when sneezing. If someone breathes it in, they could contract. That’s probably why they recommend standing 3 feet away. I am not bringing this up because I am panicking. I am not. I just like to explore all possibilities. </p>
<p>It is not panicking to make an effort to understand the different modes of transmission. </p>
<p>And, there is animal-based evidence that such droplet via air transmission has occurred. What is unknown is if the virus is mutating on such a way to allow it to more effectively employ this transmission method. Right now, that is the unknown; it would be optimal if the efficacy of such transport does not increase. </p>
<p>It would be another ironic twist if his lying and getting here etc. is the catalyst to force the FDA to change its way too restrictive experimental drug use policies. There are many other diseases where people are terminal, and they should be given the option to try experimental drugs, but, all to often, they are not.</p>
<p>My daughter came home the other day and said, “Mom! There’s ebola in Wells [small town about an hour from us]! And some of my friends were just there!” It took me a minute to figure out what it really was - enterovirus. I told her that, and she said, “No, it’s ebola! I’m sure! Everyone is talking about it!” Sigh. Mothers don’t know anything.</p>
<p>Anyway, he is only saying what molecular genetics scientists are discussing in private every day now.</p>
<p>In order to develop an effective serum and then a vaccine (there are two or three vaccines in the pipeline), it is important to understand the mechanisms by which the virus is operating. Without taking those mechanism into consideration, then any treatment becomes only a very temporary stop-gap measure. The goal is to find the one or two elements, which can be exploited/targeted across different strains. Those have not not been identified yet, but that is where the answer lies. </p>
<p>LW, where did you get the idea that there is no protection for caregivers? If health workers in the US follow the strict hygiene and use of PPE, the risk of getting the infection is absolutely minimal. The talk about the third world countries where there are no such things available or the knowledge is abysmal (they keep reusing needles, for example) The proposal is to educate family members to care for the victims at home - in affected African countries - because taking them to hospitals via taxis etc. is worse for bothe the ill and the healthy than keeping them at home. </p>
<p>I did find this article from last month where an Australian infectious disease epidemiologist says the WHO’s & CDC’s guidelines for Ebola healthcare workers is inadequate. They point out that healthcare workers in the field only use goggles and face masks while researchers use respirators.</p>
<p>However Nancy Writebol, the American woman who was infected, was in full gear I think. I coukd be wrong.</p>
<p>^Yes, please don’t use my comment about needle sticks and AIDS as a comment on the inevitability of contagion. I don’t think medical workers are now getting AIDS; twenty-plus years ago they were still learning the precautions necessary.</p>
<p>I also have not heard, @awcntdb, that Ebola can be contracted through intact skin. I think it would need to be through a cut, or through mouth, nose, or eyes. At least, that is my understanding.</p>
<p>You misunderstood me, Bunsen. When I read about the latest international caregivers to be infected, it occurred to me that one of the public reactions might be that essentially there is no sure-fire way to avoid infection when in contact with a symptomatic victim, whether clad in a biohazard suit or not. The report about the Scandinavian caregiver didn’t include details about what precautions were taken while she worked with patients. </p>
<p>The Guardian article cites several opinions. The choice of PPE has to be dictated by the circumstances. Caring for one or two patients in a US ER is not equivalent to caring for hundreds of dying in an African hospital with dirt floors and no running water. The full moonsuit may be totally appropriate in the latter setting where change of clothing is not readily available, and stuff is flying everywhere. The other scientist actually has a good point - have any of you tried to wear a respirator in a 100-degree, high humidity setting? The wearer can be so uncomfortable that she would inadvertently touch the face more to adjust it than if she would without the respirator. Been there!</p>