<p>That’s good. But science is not dogma, so what is true today might be untrue tomorrow. It’s important to understand and plan for the worst, IMO. </p>
<p>“What shall we do in the meantime?”</p>
<p>Take a chill pill.
Get a flu shot.
Eat our veggies and protein.
Exercise regularly.
Work and/or study productively.
Laugh. Relax.
Donate to a good cause.
WASH OUR HANDS. Regularly.
Take the shoes off inside the house.
Vaccinate pets and kids.
Drive safely. </p>
<p>I have personally traveled in Africa and still have scouting connections in several west African countries. I’m sure many students are looking for host families in the US. I will be willing to put those that support travel from highly infected areas to the us in touch with students that are looking for US host families. Since the US government has no problem with issuing visas from these countries and you support that I’m sure you won’t have any issue with these students in your homes. I would really feel better knowing that even though they are being ‘tracked’ by our government that concerned members of cc community are watching their health while in our country.</p>
<p>So shall we start planning for HIV to become airborne? Are we worried that now that it is living for years longer in its hosts that it will mutate tomorrow into something much more virulent?</p>
<p>I certainly haven’t seen any of those concerns noted. There are 35 million people currently infected with HIV. And if we are to believe that the more hosts it gets, the greater the likelihood for a catastrophic mutation, we should be seeing much more panic and anxiety about that.</p>
<p>We need to concentrate on the real issues, like is the Tasty Pudding Society at Harvard diverse enough?</p>
<p>I would be surprised if the scientific and medical communities haven’t already addressed it. </p>
<p>Does anyone know what is required for a virus to become ‘airborne’? I mean functionally. </p>
<p>I suspect one factor would be viral load in the lung tissue.</p>
<p>That would be “Hasty” Pudding.</p>
<p>Oh look! A MUTATION!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ridiculous. What the heck is hasty pudding? It’s tasty or not tasty–you have two choices here.</p>
<p>^aw said something like that. The virus attack cells in the lung. But some people are very busy discrediting his/her statement. Maybe they will chime in. Along the same line, how do urine and feces become to harbor the virus? Was it after the cells in kidney and intestine get attacked?</p>
<p>The annoying thing about this thread is that people are not allowed to discuss the possibility of mutations without being made fun of. Why is that?</p>
<p>I think because of the general hysteria surrounding everything ebola – this rumor that it’s mutating is just part of it. And it’s something totally unfounded. Three weeks into ebola hype we still have only 2 people who were infected in the U.S. Both are alive. None of the other people who’ve gotten sick tested for ebola despite the hysterical headlines. People aren’t using their heads. Against this background the idea of ebola mutating is not a discussion - its just hyperventilation. </p>
<p>I thought it was fairly common for viruses in general to mutate. I know it is for bacteria. Is that not true?</p>
<p>1976 - during the first Ebola epidemic the incubation period and the duration of the disease was one week.<a href=“Ebola haemorrhagic fever in Zaire, 1976 - PMC”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395567/</a></p>
<p>In answer to #1606</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you are correct. The whole issue is whether it mutates into something worse. Part of the likelihood of the change in the virus depends on the number of hosts–the more replication, the more chance of mutation.</p>
<p>Bay that’s what I heard, too, that viruses mutate all the time. </p>
<p>Could the hysteria people go to the other thread so we can discuss everything on this thread without having people jump on you? It will be good if we can preserve this thread for an open discussion.</p>
<p>The anti-hysteria people seem to be the ones becoming hysterical on this thread, whenever their wisdom is challenged. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has affected very few hosts in the US. How likely does it seem that it is making a significant mutation in the few hosts it has attacked here?</p>
<p>Secondly, people keep conflating “mutate into something more virulent” (and it could just as easily mutate into something less virulent, correct?) with “changing its mode of transmission.” I would never say never, but this is NOT something that is common; people keep insinuating that it is, however.</p>
<p><a href=“What we are not afraid to say about Ebola virus | Virology Blog”>http://www.virology.ws/2014/09/18/what-we-are-not-afraid-to-say-about-ebola-virus/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is nonsense. Smallpox’s contagiousness, its R0, is 5 to 7, which means a person with smallpox will infect 5 to 7 other people on average. Ebola’s R0 is 1 to 2. So smallpox is four times as contagious as Ebola. As infectious diseases go, Ebola is on the not-so-contagious side.</p>
<p>
Yup, they do, which is why I proposed, the year that the flu vaccine was in short supply, that the 40%+ who “don’t believe in evolution” should not get the vaccine. Sort-of just kidding. </p>