<p>That reminds me, and it’s more or less off topic but on the topic of bleeding on someone else-- if you carry a first aid kit, it should have gloves in it. Before rendering first aid, put on the gloves.</p>
<p>If the disease was significantly contagious from the sweat or saliva of people in the earliest stages of symptoms, I think there would be a lot more sick people–most notably, Duncan’s family. Plus, as I understand it, you don’t get infected simply by having the virus on your skin–it needs to gain access to mucous membranes or broken skin. This is not very likely to happen, even if you sit on a bus seat on which a sweaty person was previously sitting.</p>
<p>You could save a lot more lives by quarantining people who are planning to ride motorcycles.</p>
<p>The fact that nobody from Duncan’s family got the virus is supportive of your theory, but that’s a sample size of one (or several, depending on how you look at it). And data shows that there are two major strains of the virus in Africa (per the New Yorker article). The situation in Africa is such a mess that I wouldn’t guess that anybody would be able to tease out how infectious sweat and saliva is; non-medical personnel are breaking major rules left and right. .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wiping your eyes is a very common mode of transmission of many infections. </p>
<p>So there is no evidence? </p>
<p>The argument is there is a mess in West Africa so anything is possible? </p>
<p>CardinalFang: Good reminder of having gloves on a first aid kit</p>
<p>Even the mess that is in West Africa doesn’t support the suggestion that a flick of saliva from a person in the first hours of infection is very contagious. There should be many many more sick there if it is THAT easy to get this disease from being around someone in the first hours of symptoms but no bleeding, vomiting, or diarrhea present. </p>
<p>Doesn’t support sweat of a newly symptomatic person being contagious either, since no one in contact with Duncan or Vinson has reported any illness. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just wanting to clarify something here regarding who is actually doing the entry screening at the five US airports. @zoosermom, you can’t blame your no-good BIL for this one.TSA has nothing to do with entry screening for Ebola. It’s being done by CBP officers - different agency altogether (although they can be pretty incompetent, too :-S ).</p>
<p>
I can and do blame him for anything and everything! </p>
<p>
That all may be true as a general matter, but as I learned from reading about the initial spread of HIV, these viruses need to get lucky in order to spread far and wide. Mostly they don’t (and we don’t actually hear about them), but sometimes they do. It behooves the government to prepare for the unlikely event that is possible. I don’t think the nurse from Maine should have been held in a tent like an animal, but our troops will be quarantined in Italy after their service in Africa, and I think that’s perfectly prudent. </p>
<p><a href=“U.S. soldiers isolated for Ebola screening after Liberia mission”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/27/us-soldiers-isolated-italy-ebola/18010271/</a></p>
<p>BTW, who makes the thermometer used at the airport? That was reported to be erroneous not infrequently?</p>
<p>Since no one can point to “evidence” of anyone contracting Ebola from someone with a fever alone, why do we use fever as a measure of when someone is a problem? According to several non-experts on this thread, you can’t get Ebola unless you touch someone’s vomit, feces or blood. So why don’t scientists make “spewing vomit” or “explosive diarrhea” or “spontaneous bleeding” the scientific measure to be monitored, rather than fever?</p>
<p>I have to wonder if some people are more likely to catch Ebola than others. Duncan’s family was stuck in that apartment for days with the sheets and stuff. I would have thought that one of them might have come down with it. Especially after caring for him and cleaning up after him. Kind of like when most of a family gets the flu/cold/illness and one person in the family doesn’t. </p>
<p>I hope if they continue to isolate the toddler they let the mom or dad stay with him.</p>
<p>The CPB agents I net when we went in for our Global Entry interview don’t fill me with a tremendous amount of confidence as first line screeners for a potential health threat like ebola. That is just not what I believe most are hired for–mostly being a good bureaucrat and keeping paperwork in order. </p>
<p>So soldiers who have had no contact with Ebola patients are being quarantined for 21 days and those who have had direct contact are not. Talk about mixed message. No wonder people are confused and wondering what the heck the dangers of the viral spread are. </p>
<p>Self monitoring and self quarantining is fine but we had Amber Vinson fly to another state, we had the lab worker take a cruise, and Dr. Spencer go bowling when he may have had the symptom of fatigue. And while no one was infected by those breaches (as far as we know), the disruption and expense in contacting all those flyers, cleaning the plane, closing the bridal shop and throwing out the gowns, closing the bowling alley, quarantining the families and girlfriends, ports closing to the cruise ship…all of it…would have been unnecessary if the medical people had stayed home! </p>
<p>If the CDC had made it clear to all these people that they should stay home, the mandatory quarantines would not have come about. It was Dr. Spencer’s lapses that caused the reaction from the governors.</p>
<p>Fever is used because it is (usually) the first symptom of Ebola to appear. Using fever as the trigger for more scrutiny is conservative; waiting for more severe symptoms would be less conservative. It makes sense to use a symptom that appears before the person becomes contagious–this is why fever is being used. If we ever face a disease as serious as Ebola that really is significantly contagious before there are any symptoms at all, God help us.</p>
<p>I think another point worth mentioning is that this outbreak has been going on in Africa for months–indeed, almost a year (the index case is thought to have died in 2013). The Peace Corps pulled out its volunteers in July. If it were really that easily spread, it would already be here, and in a lot of other countries.</p>
<p>
I really wonder that, too. But isn’t it the case with most diseases, there are just some people who don’t catch them?</p>
<p>Ms. Hickox, who worked directly with Ebola patients in West Africa, registered a fever (rightly or wrongly, but she did) at the airport. She was therefore transferred to an isolation unit in a hospital where she was monitored for 2 days by doctors and other medical professionals. After her second Ebola test came back negative, she was released to go home within 24 hours (according media reports I read). Once she has time to reflect upon what happened and why it happened, one hopes she can put those three days behind her in a professional way.</p>
<p>“Since no one can point to “evidence” of anyone contracting Ebola from someone with a fever alone, why do we use fever as a measure of when someone is a problem?”</p>
<p>^ What Hunt said - “Fever is used because it is (usually) the first symptom of Ebola to appear. Using fever as the trigger for more scrutiny is conservative; waiting for more severe symptoms would be less conservative.”</p>
<p>This is not rocket science, fgs. </p>
<p>The problem with the scenario you describe, Bay, is that it seems that they would have tried to keep her for the full 21 days had their not been so much negative publicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think you can publish a conclusive research article on the modes of transmission on the basis of observing Duncan’s relatives, the other people at the bridal shop, and the lack of random cases from people on the subway? If so, be my guest. There’s a reason why you can’t.</p>
<p>My point about the mess in Africa is that conditions are so bad that it would be very difficult to conclude anything based on . Family members are handling dead bodies there. </p>
<p>The New Yorker claims there is evidence a single viral particle of ebola can overwhelm one’s natural defenses and kill someone. They don’t have references so I haven’t seen the primary research article to evaluate this claim.
This suggests that an exremely small viral load can cause a full-blown infection. </p>
<p>Experts have already listed sweat and saliva as modes of transmission. What viral load is necessary is unknown.</p>
<p>I’ve seen one article, posted by frugaldoctor, on the mode of transmission of ebola in different body fluids and its presence on different surfaces (which were cleaned with bleach beforehand.)<br>
Not a lot of data out there.</p>