<p>Even CNN – which certainly stands to gain from overwrought readers flocking to its site/channel – agrees that ebola hysteria has long jumped the shark</p>
<p>I’d love to see a real discussion – by people who know what they’re talking about (scientists, infectious disease experts, public health pros, etc.) Instead, we have scientists, infectious disease experts, etc., saying one thing – and lots of hysterical people not believing them, or simply not listening. Way too many Chicken Littles (the sky is falling! the sky is falling) opining on things they’re not qualified to opine on </p>
<p>Good to know. It seems counter intuitive that smallpox is less contagious when smallpox spreads with contact to pus only while ebola transmits through any body fluids from what I understand. How dangerous? Does 70% fatality of ebola vs 30% of smallpox make Ebola more dangerous?</p>
<p>That may be. But people on this thread are not hysterical. I’d like to look at all aspect of ebola without the fear of being judged. That’s why I started the other thread for those who want to talk about hysteria.</p>
<p>I don’t know that people are referring to it mutating here, rather mutating in general, which would be in Africa for now.</p>
<p>Regarding the word “airborne,” what exactly does that mean? That people can transmit it from breathing others’ exhalations? Do droplets from coughs and sneezes and spitting count as “airborne?”</p>
<p>I did. I posted upthread about airborne droplets not an effective way for smallpox to spread. Airborne droplets may also spread ebola. That alone does not explain smallpox is more contagious. From #1472,</p>
<p>Viruses mutate all the time. Bacteria mutate all the time. But there’s no evidence to suggest that such mutations are always/usually more virulent or more contagious than the original strain. </p>
<p>For some reason, no one wants to talk about a less virulent strain. Why is that?</p>
<p>So it sounds like smallpox is still contagious on inanimate objects-- like those famous smallpox blankets that allegedly were given to Native Americans. But Ebola is apparently not contagious on inanimate objects. This article explains that while caregivers catch Ebola, children the household who are running around touching everything usually don’t catch Ebola.</p>
<p>To be fair, aw did mention mutation could go the other way. It’s not to sensationalize we talk about the bad kind of mutation. General impression I got is it’s worse than either anyone expected or prepared. So I for one think the worse scenario is more likely. </p>
<p>On an individual basis, a mutation causing more virulence is as likely as a mutation decreasing the virulence. However, the fate of this less virulent virus and all of its replicants doesn’t really compete for hosts with the normal wild-type virus. So, in short, it doesn’t help the situation if you have a mutation to less virulence. </p>
<p>From the virus’s standpoint, a mutation that only sickens its host rather than killing the host quickly is a more successful mutation. That allows the virus to survive longer and to be passed along to more hosts. The more hosts the virus has the more chances for mutation. AIUI, there are five or six different strains of Ebola. Mutations make it more difficult to find a vaccine. That’s why flu vaccine makers and CDC have to ‘guesstimate’ which flu strain will be around each winter so they know which type of vaccine to manufacture. Many years they get that wrong. </p>
<p>You are absolutely right that a “successful mutation” in terms of evolution could be one that only sickens its host rather than killing the host quickly. However, how would this affect the success of the normal, more virulent, virus to infect and kill people? In other words, why wouldn’t you just have two viruses–one killing people at the same rate, and other one that just makes people sick? Under most circumstances that I would imagine, the spread of these two viruses (mutated and unmutated) would be independent.</p>
<p>I’d think until it dries out the virus is alive and contagious on inanimate objects. My point was with high fatality, ebola may be just as bad as smallpox and if people are advocating quarantine for smallpox, they should do the same for ebola.</p>
<p>Bay, how I understand the sentence in the quote I posted, “for level 4 isolation, it [distinction between airborne and droplet] doesn’t matter” is that it might explain the need for HCW to wear respiratory gear when treating patients. They are close to the patient, well able to be the recipient of droplets from nasopharyngeal secretions and also from vomit when it “sprays.” </p>
<p>The distinction matters VERY much in terms of how many people need to be isolated in a population. Take Nurse Vinson. If she was infectious with an airborne- transmitted lethal disease, not only would the passengers on her airplane be at risk, but potentially everyone in the terminal she was in, possibly even hours after she left. That’s a HUGE difference.</p>
<p>Ok I understand that distinction, thank you. How about after death? That seems to be highly infectious time when the virus is said to “jump” to those preparing the body. Is this transmission any different than the usual blood, etc transfer?</p>
</p>