<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a stupid statment. The virus doesn’t kill everyone who comes in contact. It rarely kills if you consider how many viruses there are. </p>
<p>Why aren’t you guys bringing up entrovirus? I hope this focus on ebola doesn’t hinder the progress on entrovirus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect. HIV is spread by blood, semen, and maybe breast milk. I know that the virus is detectable in saliva but it’s harder to transmit that way.</p>
<p>In other words, HIV is spread by body fluids. In fact, there’s more HIV in blood than in semen, I believe.</p>
<p>I am suspicious of R0 number for Ebola. R0 for ebola is the same as R0 for HIV? Is R0 highly susceptibel to raw dat collected for the disease? I just don’t get how for Sierra Leone alone R0=8 while for Liberia alone R0=3. It’s a same virus, isn’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on how you define “harder”. Sure HIV is spread mainly by sexual contact nowadays, but it used to be spread by blood transfusions and use of blood products. Remember that? Plus, I believe that the R Naught of HIV is higher than that of Ebola, which implies that HIV is more transmissible.</p>
<p>Of course, I forgot to add blood. My point was its means of spread is more limited than for ebola. Wouldn’t that imply ebola may be more contagious? Other body fluids are more common than blood or seminal fluids. If this is incorrect, what makes HIV more contagious?</p>
<p>I watched the Osterholm video, and he had a lot to say about the “airborne” issue. He basically says that we don’t know for sure that it doesn’t transmit this way (including based on animal lab experiments); that he and other virologists are very concerned about this issue; and that there is a big difference from HIV because we know that HIV does not live in the lung cells while Ebola does. He seems to refer to it more as “respiratory” transmission, rather than airborne, for the reasons we discussed earlier: that it is blurry, and the range of transmission may or may not have something to do with it.</p>
<p>I also wonder why people on this thread are constantly bringing up other viruses. I guess they are trying to keep Ebola in perspective? Worry more about flu!!! How many times have people said that over, and over, and over again. I am more likely to die of something other than flu, so why should I worry about flu? It obscures the issue to bring up flu, and HIV, and measles and other things we should be worrying about it. Can we just talk about Ebola on this thread without people accusing us of “panicking?” We’re not panicking!</p>
<p>Igloo,
Whats stupid is not understanding how many more people are infected worldwide by some of these more common viruses, and how many thousands, especially the young or the elderly, die from them.</p>
<p>114 pages of CC discussion and weeks after Duncan’s arrival in the U.S. – and still only TWO people infected by ebola in the country. Both alive. As is Duncan’s fiancee, who is, in fact, ebola-free. Doesn’t this tell you something, igloo and Bay? </p>
<p>“I am more likely to die of something other than flu, so why should I worry about flu?”</p>
<p>You are much more likely to die of something other than Ebola, too. </p>
<p>So? Does that mean we should stop talking about it?</p>
<p>katlimom,</p>
<p>You do know about the WHO and CDC projections for the disease in Africa, don’t you? Its fine if you don’t give a hoot because only two Americans have contracted it, but lots of others prefer to look at the big picture.</p>
<p>“Does that mean we should stop talking about it?”</p>
<p>No, talk away. It’s the worrying part which should be put to rest in these discussions (and I don’t mean to single you out.)</p>
<p>I also think if the discussion is being focused on Ebola’s chance for mutation that discussing mutations of other viruses is an important part of the discussion, as it the ease of transmission of other viruses versus Ebola - as that puts things into context. JMO. </p>
<p>Yes, I agree some discussions of other viruses are relevant; just not the constant, worry more about flu!! type of admonishments. </p>
<p>Teresa Romero has been declared free of Ebola. Yay!!</p>
<h1>1712 - Bay, as someone who’s traveled to Africa an on average of once per year in the past 3 years – and will be heading to East Africa probably in January – I pay attention to many diseases one can come across the continent. (And, frankly, I’m more concerned about malaria and dengue fever than ebola.)</h1>
<p>The reason I bring up ebola in the U.S. is </p>
<h1>1 That’s what THIS THREAD is about</h1>
<h1>2 Posters on this thread have made it plenty clear that they’re more interested in drastic short-term measures (quarantines, closing off borders) rather than realistic long-term policies to curb ebola</h1>
<h1>3 There’s been very little concern for Africans on this thread and many others: it’s all about OMG, it’s HERE.</h1>
<p>None of your reasons comport with my impressions at all.</p>
<p>Really? How many posters advocate calm, investment in Africa’s medical and communication infrastructure, spending money on research, large-scale public health education, or donating to MSF (except BunsenBurner who’s departed this thread)? How many actually listed any facts about what ebola has done in Africa? About the differences between this outbreak and the two previous ones, in 76 and 2000? What’s been learned from it? And how the affected nations are dealing with it, dealt with it, erred or reacted correctly to it? </p>
<p>Instead, I mostly see posters writing medically-oriented posts, and those with more factual knowledge correcting them. </p>
<p><a href=“Hospitals Brace as Ebola Panic, Flu Season Collide”>Hospitals Brace as Ebola Panic, Flu Season Collide;
<p>Well, Reuters seems to think that talking about influenza is a worthwhile discussion:
</p>
<p>Sorry, but 3,000-49,000 deaths a year is nothing to sneeze at (pun intended).</p>