<p>In my view, all that could be said is this strain has not been shown to be transmitted via airborne particles between humans. That is very different than saying it has not happened.</p>
<p>However, the Canadian study showing transmission between pigs and monkeys in separate pens without the exchange of any fluids may indicate that it may be possible at some point to be transmitted effectively via airborne particles between humans, as the lungs are similar to humans.</p>
<p>But, for me, there is not enough data to make a definitive statement about this strain. Past strains, yes, but hindsight is 20-20.</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>Bay, here’s what I think. People hear about worrisome things, and they comfort themselves in different ways. Some feel better knowing that serious preventative measures are taken, and that the people in charge are truly the most competent around, who are doing everything possible to protect us. They aren’t comfortable being lied to, hearing platitudes, BS, and trust us. They see the incompetence and serious mistakes that have happened already, see that the new Ebola response chief is only a political aide, and feel that this is not being taken seriously and that the people in charge have no real idea of what they are doing. They feel that their chief goal appears to be to prevent panic, not disease.</p>
<p>Others comfort themselves by taking a more complacent approach. Everything will be fine, our government is in total control and will protect us. There are other things more worrisome, and even discussing possibilities about a spread of this disease in the US is purely overreacting and hysteria, certainly by people who are far less educated about these things. A killer disease like Ebola could never take hold in the US, and any discussion of this is ridiculous. Relax, don’t be silly.</p>
<p>Now chances are, the casual, dismissive attitude will prevail. Ebola seems to be a tough disease to spread, unless you’re exposed to later stage body fluids. We’ve managed to dodge a lot of bullets in this country. Maybe if we pretend it isn’t a threat, it won’t be. Unless it is. And then the people with the complacent approach will act like it was a huge surprise. How could anyone have known this could happen? Kind of like ISIS (the JV team). Or the chemical weapons found in Iraq by US troops (injuries concealed by our govt). It’s pretty hard not to doubt competency and honesty anymore, but people would rather classify it as hysteria, I think, as a way of comforting themselves that perhaps there could be greater risk.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, those bodily fluids can include sweat and or whatever invisible water droplets that may come out when sneezing or even in the course of talking. That is why they say that you are at risk if you are within 6 ft. away. Also, if you handle anything which may have come into contact with an infected person you may get infected. It’s been demonstrated that infection with a single viral particle can replicate into something that can kill you–something which is not the case for many disease-causing viruses. </p>
<p>One risk that was mocked was the risk of handling the dresses that were tried on by the nurse that came down with ebola, the risk of the derisively labeled “ebola touch.” In the best case scenario that the nurse just perspired lightly on the dress, it is not immediately clear how long exactly one should it expect it to be dried out. It is also not clear whether once the virus has dried out whether it has lost all integrity and is no longer infectious. The fact that it is not airborne does not mean that drying is equal to sterilization; to be airborne also requires it that it can attach to the lung epithelial cells upon inhalation and be incorporated. </p>
<p>Having worked with viruses, if you ship certain ones in the wrong conditions, they will lose activity. (I’m not a virologist, but it is commonly used to deliver genetic material in order to test the effects of expressing a certain protein.) However, that doesn’t mean every single virus is ‘dead’. Dead is not even a good word, since viruses are just empty shells encapsulating RNA/DNA. For them to really be not infectious, the protein shell or the genetic material must become damaged somehow, either through temperature or enzymes which destroy RNA and DNA that are found in the natural environment. However, unlike many viruses, ebola is potent enough that only a single viral particle will replicate enough in the body (and resist the natural immune defenses) to kill someone. So when some guy from the cdc says that ebola can’t live on surfaces, so don’t worry about the ebola guy who sweated all over your airplane seat before you got on the plane or wore your wedding dress, i have questions about that. And it’s not simply uninformed hysteria.</p>
<p>I understand the immediate reaction of a lot of people is to close our borders to people from west Africa, but the arguments against it which have been put forward by the professionals on both sides of the aisle. in this area are compelling. </p>
<p>And it makes sense, too. I kep having a problem with poison ivy in our yard. Every time I got rid of one patch, I’d find three more. It was very annoying. Finally I went round my neighbor’s yard and found a very large and mature clump of poison ivy. We eradicated that clump, and bingo, it stopped reseeding in my yard. I suspect Ebola will be easier to get rid of if we identify and take care of the cases we have here, but concentrate on the mature outbreak in west Africa. </p>
<p>This is where watching the landscape and reading the tea leaves comes in handy.</p>
<p>He would not be invited to speak at the top Masters of Public Health schools, if the faculty and provosts of those schools thought he was unbelievable and speaking nonsense. The doctors, virologists and research scientists who agree with him in part or fully, but cannot speak publicly for various reasons, are stealthily giving him (and others now) an audience to get his viewpoint out there. </p>
<p>But they do not change their mode of transmission all the time. Mutating and changing mode of transmission are not even close to being the same thing.</p>
<p>The experts are saying, yes a ban will reduce and delay cases coming into the US, but this is not to say we should not talk about the costs and benefits of the ban, and continuing to battle the disease in Africa.</p>
<p>We know this virus is not transmitted via the airborne route (the actual definition of airborne transmission, not the fact that droplets remain airborne for a short time) because if it were, you would see an entirely different infection pattern than we are seeing. Every one of Duncan’s contacts should be infected if this were truly an airborne virus, and there would be multiple MULTIPLE and MULTIPLE times more infected persons in West Africa if it were the case.</p>
<p>There seems to be a lot of twisting of words here. No one, NO ONE has said that ebola is not a threat. Of course its a threat, a deadly threat and an awful way to die. But here, it is currently a low probability threat, compared to other risks. I am currently watching the news in a city that has actively treated Ebola patients, and what are they reporting- the importance of getting a flu shot and the much higher risk of exposure to the flu virus.</p>
<p>Bay, perhaps you are misreading, but am not seeing any of the posters who have indicated they are healthcare providers saying that there is evidence that the current Ebola virus is airborne. Does that mean it never could be? Of course not. No one is affirming what might happen down the road. But at present, there is no indication that this strain is transmitted other than by bodily fluids. Now, unless you consider projectile vomiting “airborne”, hopefully we have cleared up some misunderstandings.</p>
<p>I spoke to someone today whose relative was unwilling to enter our state because of the risk of ebola. Sorry, that is over the top.</p>
<p>^^ I keep telling myself i’m not going to get sucked back into this conversation - but that’s what I keep thinking, too, Nrdsb4. If this virus were airborne - and if it was so “easy” to catch - then there would be no one left alive in Liberia or Sierra Leone. Heck, we’d have a LOT more people sick here in America, too. Last I heard, none of Mr. Duncan’s contacts are sick, and those people were with him in a cramped little apartment for days.</p>
<p>Maybe it depends on when, in the progress of the disease, the lung tissues begin to carry the virus and the virus is sheddable? I have no idea, just hypothesizing.</p>
<p>No, you are misreading what I initially wrote, but perhaps it is because of my bad grammar. I said that med pros on this thread expressed that the airborne idea is absurd, and used the fact that HIV didn’t go airborne as evidence. </p>
<p>Ebola experts are not agreeing with this, and counter the HIV example with the fact that we <em>know</em> HIV isn’t found in lung cells, while we <em>know</em> that Ebola is found in lung cells.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that the droplets which are referred to when discussing droplet transmission are “airborne” for relatively short distances. But the actual medical definition of airborne transmission means that the infected particles can travel for very long distances and stay suspended in the air for long periods of time. May not seem like a big distinction to some, but in terms of how easily and how many people can be infected by a virus like that, it’s huge.</p>
<p>There you go again, bay. No one’s answer is good enough? post 1771: You continue to conjecture unlikely hypotheses about the current ebola virus? This doesnt seem helpful to the discussion.</p>
<p>And
I thought I read that she did not try on any dresses, but was there to pick out her bridesmaid’s dresses. </p>
<p>It is notable that there have been NO new cases after Duncan and the two nurses, despite Duncan’s relatives living in the apartment in close quarters and being forced to live there even after he was admitted to the hospital with ebola until they were moved. None of the people in contact with the nurses has yet been diagnosed with ebola either.</p>
<p>That is not what I have seen in medical definitions online. “Airborne” means suspended in air, or travels by air, including by cough or sneeze. But I agree that the definition may cause confusion, which is exactly what Dr. Osterholm said, and why he referred to it as “respiratory” transmission.</p>
<p>Which <em>answer</em> are you referring to? That since more people weren’t infected by Duncan, then the virus cannot be airborne? Is that enough evidence for you?</p>