Second Ebola patient

[Bay]

<p>

"When people die (all people not just Ebola victims) they void whatever is left and it is messy. "

</p>

<p>Yes, sadly I have experienced this with my pet who died. But I imagine it is no worse, and perhaps less area-extensive than the “explosive” diarrhea that happens while living.</p>

[jym626]

<p>When sphincter muscles no longer work, well…</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>Jym, I think we successfully grossed everyone out of the thread. :)</p>

[jym626]

<p>Probably so. Ah, the price of education…</p>

[CTTC]

<p>

@TatinG

It’s also interesting that the son of the Liberian president is a doctor practicing in Georgia. He has lived here for many years and has no intention of going back to Liberia to help with the Ebola crisis there.

That is shameful. And we are sending thousands of troops while Liberian president’s own son does nothing?</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

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>No difference because viable is viable. </p>

<p>Whether the virus is alive in body fluids, dried blood, on a surface, or possibly piggy-backing on hydrated molecules in the air, it can infect and start the replication process that may result in a consequential mutation. </p>

<p>I use the word consequential above because replications routinely result in a amino acid or base-pair error somewhere. However, most mutations result in no change in virulency or in useful infectious pathways.</p>

<p>In a morbid sense, it is unfortunate that infected patients who are going to die do not die more quickly. This allows the virus to replicate longer in the host and “learn” the body even more and how to defeat it. Thus, the longer an infected person lives, the more virulent this strain may become and the less resistant human hosts becomes.</p>

[jym626]

<p>But this virus doesn’t “jump” onto others. That term can cause unnecessary alarm. Which helps no one. Where is there evidence that it “piggy backs on hydrated molecules”? It can be projected-- in spit, in blood spatter, in vomit, but where is there evidence of the other?? And this horrible disease doesn’t kill the victims quickly enough?/ Oh for the love of g-d.

Death, if it occurs, is typically 6 to 16 days from the start of symptoms and is often due to low blood pressure from fluid loss

That’s not fast enough for you? The alarmist stuff does no one any good.</p>

<p>I have visions of someone wearing a sandwich board that says “run for your lives- the world is coming to an end!” Spreading scare tactics is unhelpful.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

That is shameful. And we are sending thousands of troops while Liberian president’s own son does nothing?

</p>

<p>Yes, looks not the greatest. but based his reasoning, it really comes down to the question of, “Is it shameful for a parent to think long-term about his family?” </p>

<p>I agree his kids should come first.</p>

<p>On another note, he did not ask for our troops to be sent and he is not the one sending them, so I also agree with him on the appeasement issue of no need to satisfy people who have no responsibility to his kids if they are left fatherless.</p>

<p>He said:</p>

<p>

The symbolism of me going there and potentially getting Ebola when I have a nine- and a seven-year-old at home isn’t worth it just to appease people. ”</p>

<p>—Dr. James Adama Sirleaf

</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/articles/many-liberian-doctorsincluding-presidents-sonare-staying-away-1413758509”>http://online.wsj.com/articles/many-liberian-doctorsincluding-presidents-sonare-staying-away-1413758509&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[awcntdb]

<p>

I thought it was fairly common for viruses in general to mutate.

</p>

<p>Yes, everything with DNA and RNA mutates - all the time in fact. </p>

<p>The issue here is 99.999%+ of all viruses do not kill you when you are infected, and 99.999%+ do NOT have the mechanisms to disguise and hide within the body for extended periods of time. They just do not these mechanisms, and they get flushed out or are contained by antibodies or limited to a non-infectious titer. So no one cares about those non-lethal viruses and mutations. </p>

<p>However, when the virus mutating actively kills at a clip of 70% of the people it infects and is increasing in mortality rate, might be time to take things seriously because the mutations occurring are clearly making it more virulent. </p>

[jym626]

<p>

The issue here is 99.999%+ of all viruses do not kill you when you are infected

More incorrect information. Swine flu kills. Influenza kills, HIV kills, yellow fever kills, Hep C kills, polio kills, smallpox kills, measles kill, meningitis kills, dengue fever kills, SARS (coronavirus) kills, MERS kills, avian flu kills, hantavirus kills, marburg virus kills, etc. Some have vaccines, some do not. </p>

<p>Want more?
Here are more Hemorrhagic viruses <a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/virus-families/index.html”>http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/virus-families/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[scout59]

<p>^^ You beat me to it, jym. </p>

<p>Adding to your list: the plague kills, encephalitis kills, rabies kills (almost 100%), anthrax kills, typhoid kills, and cholera kills, too.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Thanks, scout. There are lots of deadly bacteria as well. Ebola is scary as it has a high percentage mortality rate, but some of the other viruses are far more widespread worldwide and more easily caught. PSA-- get your flu shot, everyone.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Am thinking some of the fear mongering incorrect info belongs on the hysteria thread.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

In a morbid sense, it is unfortunate that infected patients who are going to die do not die more quickly. This allows the virus to replicate longer in the host and “learn” the body even more and how to defeat it. Thus, the longer an infected person lives, the more virulent this strain may become and the less resistant human hosts becomes.

</p>

<p>Are you equally alarmed that HIV may become more virulent, as it is living in its hosts for much longer than ebola is?</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>This is a must-view video for people interested in Ebola.</p>

<p>Compare his respect for the data (or lack of data) and his clarity of presentation to what we have seen, and it shows why Dr. Osterholm is taken seriously. He is not bureaucrat or an employee who needs to follow directions and thus he is not afraid of losing his job, so he speaks like a thinking scientist.</p>

<p>He is also very fair to the CDC and others. Either way, he really brings a lot of issues together and explains very diplomatically why the CDC is getting shorted on the trust issue, even though it actually has done a commendable job. Just that the job is still not good enough and it speaks with the tone of having knowledge it does not really have.</p>

<p>This guy is thinking, not pontificating, which is great see. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>He discuss the hubris people have about their knowledge of Ebola versus our actual history with Ebola. (starting at 3:35)</p></li>
<li><p>He discusses risk communication and directly addresses the issue on a populous when you speak with certainty, but have none. (starting at 5:25)</p></li>
<li><p>He discuses the dangerous use of dogma by the CDC. (starting at 6:25)</p></li>
<li><p>He discusses how the WHO and CDC even have different predictions, s something must be off. (starting at 8:00)</p></li>
<li><p>His signature statement is we (the world)’ “does not have a Plan B” and are depending on past historical behavior, which seems wrong in a few places. (starting at 10:50)</p></li>
<li><p>He addresses the genomic (MUTATION) aspects of the disease and what people are saying versus the facts (starting at 14:15). </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Kind of shows how silly some posters are in terms of their pronouncements in light of the reality. You decide who you think is smarter, more introspective and oread-thinking, him or them.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Addresses the issue of risk communication (starting at 15:50)</p></li>
<li><p>Discusses the issue that fever is NOT necessary and is concerned that people are not being upfront about the fever issue. Makes one thnk about the screening procedures at airports. (starting at 16:25)</p></li>
<li><p>He discusses the airborne transmission possibility (starting at 17:55)</p></li>
<li><p>He discusses that the world has no Plan B (starting at 21:00)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>On separate note, something he does not discuss here is that he does not support a travel ban. However, he also does not support the current screening measures, so he is consistent. He rather see better tests and screening procedures and the ability to track people who travel. But the problem is, of course, we are depending on fever which is not accurate in at least 15% of cases and we do not track people who arrive, so that becomes an issue itself. He acknowledges those issues in interviews.</p>

<p><a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube;

<p>*** If someone already posted this video, please accept my apologies for the repeat.</p>

[jym626]

<p>No responses to any of the comments or questions posed by other posters to the fear mongering and clearly erroneous information? Just more “instruction”. Maybe that researcher isn’t pontificating, but someone else is. :-@ </p>

[CTTC]

<p>

Yes, looks not the greatest. but based his reasoning, it really comes down to the question of, “Is it shameful for a parent to think long-term about his family?”

Then his mother the President ought to stop calling for other nations to send people in to risk their lives.</p>

[scout59]

<p>“Must-view video”? How about some “must-answer questions”? As jym pointed out, you don’t seem to want to address the questions that other posters raise here. </p>

<p>Nrdsb4 - great question! Why aren’t more people afraid of HIV becoming more virulent? Because it is - or at least there is actual preliminary science (not hand-waving and fear-mongering) to support that hypothesis:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jwatch.org/ac201201130000006/2012/01/13/hiv-becoming-more-virulent”>http://www.jwatch.org/ac201201130000006/2012/01/13/hiv-becoming-more-virulent&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“Has HIV Become More Virulent? | ScienceDaily”>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090407105259.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Basically, new HIV-infected patients present with lower CD4 counts and higher viral loads than patients did in years past, which may indicate that the viruses infecting patient today are more virulent:</p>

<p>

This is the first study from the United States which shows that the immune cells among recently diagnosed HIV patients has dramatically fallen during the HIV epidemic. …</p>

<p>“Unfortunately, it may no longer be true that there is a time period of several years between diagnosis and the need for treatment – instead this time-span is shortening” said study author Nancy Crum-Cianflone MD, of the San Diego Naval Medical Center.

</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>Am I correct to say HIV is spread by seminal fluid while ebola by any body fluid? If so, the answer is there. Don’t I am not saying people shouldn’t have sex. HIV seems harder to spread than ebola. And we know more about HIV than ebola. Unknown is always scarier.</p>

[scout59]

<p>And has anyone posted this from the Washington Post? I may have missed it in the 100+ pages of this thread, but it’s all abut mutations and the possibility of an air-borne virus:</p>

<p>

Yes, the virus is mutating — a recent paper in Science shows that more than 300 mutations have occurred. But what is now a virus that latches onto receptors outside endothelial cells lining the circulatory system won’t change into one that can attach to the alveolar cells of the lungs. That’s a genetic leap in the realm of science fiction. </p>

<p>Viruses mutate for two reasons: random error and natural selection.* Random transformation from a virus solely adapted to infect cells that line blood vessels into one that can attach to entirely different classes of proteins found in the lungs borders on the impossible.* Natural selection can overcome the impossible if great pressure is put on a viral population, forcing it to alter or die out. But in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, there is no such pressure on Ebola: The virus is spreading readily and infecting thousands of people without any need to change into a radically new form.

</p>

<p>The italics are mine. In other words, Ebola doesn’t need to mutate - it’s virulent enough as it is. </p>

<p>Also note the phrase “science fiction.”</p>