<p>What I’ve read is that the Ebola virus is a “wet” virus, that deactivates permanently when it dries out. So if I have Eboal and I sneeze on you, and you get little wet particles of my bodily fluids, you could contract Ebola. But if I sneeze on a towel, or bleed on one, and the towel then dries out, it will remain disgusting but will not longer be infectious. I have further read that in order for a “wet” virus to mutate to a “dry” virus like the common cold, many many many mutations would have to occur; that would be a big change that is not going to happen.</p>
<p>“People say they want information, they get information, and they misunderstand or twist it into misinformation. And so it goes.”</p>
<p>Perhaps that is because there are fairly few credible sources of information. And it can be hard to decipher what is true, and what is purely anti-panic spin. Also on this board. I don’t think anyone here has claimed to be an Ebola expert. But they did stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so…</p>
<p>I don’t know if this is restricted or not, but if you can 't read it, I urge anyone who wants to understand about the difference between droplets and “airborne” and other biological processes connected with Ebola to get a copy of this week’s New Yorker and read this. Fascinating article, and sad. </p>
<p>Are you referring to me? Are you saying that since one very helpful nurse on this thread has an opinion about the transmission of Ebola, then that should end the discussion? Why are you not considering what Dr. Osterholm had to say, which is that we don’t know all the ways it is transmitted yet, including airborne?</p>
<p>The guy who did the pigs and monkey experiment (Kobinger) tried to replicate the results to see if the monkeys would infect other monkeys via the airborne route. It didn’t happen. People often point to his first study, but conveniently leave out any mention of his follow up.</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing out that it us “not…all the time,” which is another way of saying that sometimes they do. And given the mortality rate of Enola and the fact that there is no known treatment, then dismissing the possibility is planning for the best case scenario. </p>
<p>Therefore, you are comfortable leading from behind waiting for it to happen then reacting. What others are saying is they rather be in front and be ready if the worst case scenario occurred, until enough evidence is in that it is remote for this strain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually this makes little sense, as they too very much linked.</p>
<p>In order to change modes of transmission from the virus side, there would need to be a mutation, which: changes how the virus attaches to other particles (by changing its outer coating) or somehow increases its ability to survive longer in a specific milieu or allows it to survive in a previously lethal environment.</p>
<p>It’s harder for the mode of transmission to change because it tends to involve jumping more evolutionary steps. However, the Reston ebola, if truly airborne as has been suggested, does seem to suggest that this change is not quite as unfeasible as the head of the human genome Eric Lander characterized it. Lander compared it to zebras learning to fly.</p>
<p>Bay,
I was initially referring to post 1771 ( I clarified when other posts intervened) but then you did it again. Nrdsb4, a nurse, explained the distinction between potential differences in the use of the term “airborne” and you discounted her. I would respect her opinion. And NO I dont think the 2 nurses who contracted ebola from Duncan got it due to what could even remotely be considered “airborne” transmission as defined above. They likely came into DIRECT contact with his blood, feces, urine or vomit. When he was readmitted he was pretty darned sick. And as far as we know to date, NO ONE in the waiting area, the ER, the treatment areas when he was there before he was isolated, has gotten sick. So NO I see NO evidence that Duncan’s virus was airborne. And if you are going to say this isnt good enough, and you are going to conjecture that maybe he sneezed and the nurse was across the room and caught it, well, that would not be worth discussing.</p>
<p>If you are referring to me, the definition of airborne transmission was not “my opinion” about what airborne transmission is. </p>
<p>Using the definition of the word “airborne” is insufficient in explaining the differences between droplet transmission and airborne transmission when discussing modes of transmission of disease. </p>
<p>I could throw some body fluids at your face and it could enter the eyes or mouth. (sorry, gross, and I would never ever do that). The fact that the material traveled through the air (was “airborne,” if only for a moment) as a result of the force with which I threw it does not mean that the illness would by that virtue be defined as transmission via airborne route.</p>
<p>Because they are smarter than he is. Is that not obvious? They are also smarter than all the doctors and scientists who give Osterholm data as well. It is not like he is making it up. He has doctors with studies and current ongoing research on his side. Statements such as “THIS” is what he means by people making proclamations they have little basis for. </p>
<p>I saw a clip on the local news last night concerning the giant bins of waste produced by one Ebola patient. In Texas, they are incinerating it. California hospitals have no idea what they’d do if we had an Ebola patient since incinerating is not allowed. If Ebola is no longer deadly when dry, why the concern over what to do with the waste? Wouldn’t it dry in the barrels and then be harmless and could go into landfills? </p>
<p>It’s this kind of disparate information that makes me wonder if the powers that be really know what they need to know about this virus. </p>
<p>My guess is PR and unreasonable fear. No one wants to be that official who says it’s okay to put this stuff in the landfill. I can see the political ads now!</p>
<p>Can you provide a citation to the official medical definition of “airborne,” please? I cannot seem to find the one that does not include suspended droplets.</p>
<p>aw- I was merely agreeing with another poster’s comment. And since you are obviously reading the posts, several posters have asked for responses rather than arrogant condescending cracks and lectures. Maybe those blinders on the tin hat are making the computer monitor hard to read.</p>
<p>The definition of airborne is buried in this very long article. They do not consider viruses transmitted while suspended in droplets of water as ‘airborne’–the distinction matters because droplets do not travel very far before falling to the floor, and the air should not be dangerous hours afterwards.</p>