Second Ebola patient

[awcntdb]

<p>Jym, Interesting, providing detailed information is considered a lecture. OK. We clearly have different definitions of what is a useful response. Suggestion - ignore posts you think are lectures.</p>

<p>In any case, I think the thread is a good example of differing opinions, and I view nothing written, as a lecture. </p>

[jym626]

<p>

Suggestion - ignore posts you think are lectures.

Well that would require my putting you on ignore, which is becoming an increasingly desirable plan. What healthcare background do you have?</p>

[saintfan]

<p>Does this mean it’s not safe to eat bacon?</p>

[Bay]

<p>Using Nrdsb4’s definition, then no, I have not seen anyone arguing that Ebola is “airborne” yet. Experts have been arguing that there is a good chance it is “transmissable through the air,” in the form of droplets, or by “respiratory” transmission. </p>

[garland]

<p>trouble maker! </p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>In collegealum’s article, explanation of the distinction between droplet transmission and airborne transmission is indeed buried in the article:</p>

<p>

There are two distinct ways a virus can travel in the air. In what’s known as droplet infection, the virus can travel inside droplets of fluid released into the air when, for example, a person coughs. The droplets travel only a few feet and soon fall to the ground. The other way a virus can go into the air is through what is called airborne transmission. In this mode, the virus is carried aloft in tiny droplets that dry out, leaving dust motes, which can float long distances, can remain infective for *** hours or days,*** and can be inhaled into the lungs.

</p>

<p>Emphasis is mine. That’s a big, no HUGE difference between droplet and airborne transmission of disease.</p>

<p>

Using Nrdsb4’s definition, then no,

</p>

<p>I would respectfully ask that this not be referred to as "my definition,’ because it really isn’t. It is the commonly accepted definition held by the medical community at large.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

Does this mean it’s not safe to eat bacon?

</p>

<p>Bacon kills far more people every year due to heart disease than Ebola. Therefore, it is more deadly than Ebola.</p>

<p>Undoubtedly, a Bacon Czar is being chosen by the White House at this very moment.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Researchers will continue to look at potential future risks. It might , IMO, be helpful to stay with a discussion of current risk, as that is what is what we are facing. All these “what if’s” border of the fear mongering.
And as for Osterholm, he said this:

MO: We don’t know. But in the patient setting, when you do pulmonary procedures, when you have projectile vomiting, when you have incubation issues, clearly the virus [could be transmitted through the air]. This virus can infect the lungs. This virus is in very high levels in many of these patients, which could enhance [that airborne transmission]. From a precautionary principle, therefore, we should protect the workers. If you’re treating an Ebola patient, you should be using a [powered air respirator]. It’s just that straightforward.</p>

<p>That’s in the patient setting. As far as respiratory transmission — like, say, the measles — [in the general population], there are several lines of evidence that we at least have to be thinking about. I’m not saying it’s happened yet, and I don’t know if it ever will happen. But I don’t want any more “Black Swan” events where we don’t know something that we should have known.

So, it appears his example is of the “don’t inhale someone’s projectile vomit” ilk. . NOT that the virus can remain airborne, dried and infect people far away.</p>

<p>Well, off to play bridge with an attorney from the CDC. Time for me to put on my tin hat and rubber gloves. If she projectile vomits and I inhale it, I’ll report back.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>A distinction to be made is airborne (bring able to survive on its own in air and travel extended distances) vs. airborne-assisted transmission attached to a secondary particle. Dr. Osterholm was clear to make the distinction.,</p>

<p>Re viability in dried blood:</p>

<p>In dried blood, Ebola may remain stable for 4 - 5 days. And given that, some recommendations are to use 7 days to be safe. </p>

<p>That is why they used full hazmats and two applications of disinfectant to clean the apartment Duncan was in after 6 days had passed already. Watch what the CDC does, not what it says, and it gives away what it truly believes.</p>

[saintfan]

<p>Death by bacon is usually not swift and gruesome and one could have a favorable lipid panel even with liberal bacon consumption. Nitrate free bacon might be a more sound choice.</p>

[garland]

<p>Hey, nrdsb, I quoted that exact passage about half an hour ago–what am I, chopped liver? (It would go with the bacon :D)</p>

[jym626]

<p>More from Osterholm:

I don’t know if it’s going to happen, but the way we can guarantee it won’t happen is if we put out that forest fire of infection in West Africa. But who’s planning right now so that this doesn’t get into Central Africa? We can’t fight this on one front. How the hell are we going to fight it on two fronts or three fronts?</p>

<p>I’m not saying that respiratory transmission is currently in the community. We have no evidence of that today

</p>

[jym626]

<p>Update:
Nina Pham has been upgraded to “good” condition.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>According to an interview with the bridal shop owner, the nurse didn’t try on any dresses. The purpose for the visit was bridesmaids’ fittings.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Yup, I reported that in post 1775, LasMa</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>Have not a clue what post #1811 is suppose to represent. </p>

<p>For the record, no has says it is transmitted by respiratory particles between humans. However, given that possible evidence between pigs and monkeys, he is not dumb enough to act like it may not be possible between humans in the future, and he wants to have a plan in place in case it does happen. </p>

<p>In short, he does not want to lead from behind, after it happens. He wants to be ready with an action ready to implement. He would be more than happy not to have to use that plan.</p>

[jym626]

<p>post 1811 is from an interview with Osterholm . Thats what it “represents”. He does NOT feel airborne transmission is a CURRENT risk, and may or may not be a potential risk in the future. . <a href=“The U of M’s Osterholm: What we should — and shouldn’t — be worried about regarding Ebola | MinnPost”>http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/10/u-ms-osterholm-what-we-should-and-shouldnt-be-worried-about-regarding-ebola&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>He., like most everyone, advocates for more $$ for more research. And to stop cutting funding to the CDC and other facilities. But as to the airborn issue, we are speaking of CURRENT ebola risk and this is not an issue.</p>

[katliamom]

<p>So?</p>

[jym626]

<p>Katlai-- whats that in response to??</p>

[katliamom]

<p>Sorry, that was to #1815 – the speculation about what Osterholm MIGHT have meant… </p>