Ebola...again

[Aura]

Anyone up to another round of Ebola discussion? I would really like to talk about this with those who (1) don't dismiss it because it doesn't affect them, and (2) can help me sort through the varying claims and numbers.

 

To start with, here's a rundown on some of the things I've been reading: Currently, Ebola spreads exponentially in Liberia, and Ebola is surging in places it was beaten back. Liberia in particular has lost the ability to deal with this. I shudder at the thought of what lays in the future for this already poor nation. It's also popping up in other African nations.

 

And while it is supposedly not airborne (nice article on what that means), there are growing concerns over "in the air" transmission.

 

On one hand, it's not extremely contagious, and it is only spread through direct contact. On the other, it can survive on hard surfaces for up to several days. Both of these claims are made in this article on the actual disease. Also, after someone has recovered from Ebola, they still remain infectious for a time (male survivors can carry the virus in their semen for up to seven weeks).

 

There have been multiple cases outside of Africa where people have been tested for possible Ebola cases. Personally, I doubt that if a case actually appeared in, say, Miami, we'd be told the truth. I guess I wouldn't really blame officials for keeping a lid on that because of the fear of panic. But I want to know the truth, not be protected from it (a whole 'nother discussion, perhaps.) I certainly don't envy the job having to make that call.

 

Okay, so with all that in mind, I dislike it when people get all panicky and scared over what *might* happen. On the other hand, I equally dislike it when people dismiss things and bury their head in the sand because the implications are worse than they want to deal with. Can we possibly discuss this without jumping to the extremes that I keep finding in other discussions?

 

I think most developed countries are currently capable of dealing with small numbers of cases. But how contagious is it really, because what I'm reading sounds very conflicting to me? And what would happen if an area had a breakout of Ebola similar in size to a small flu breakout? Ebola is much more severe, and comes with a panic factor that the flu doesn't have, and I would think that even our healthcare system would be overwhelmed in dealing with that.

 

What happens if/when it moves into densely populated areas like in India or the Philippines, where you have a mix of developed world technology with third world poverty?

 

We're coming up on the flu season (and let's not forget the enterovirus that's currently going around), so it seems easily possible that Ebola could show up and not get noticed because the first symptoms are so similar these viruses.

 

So....the big question is how does this apply to those of us with good healthcare and hygiene and access to supplies and medicines that are not available in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.?

[Aura]

I agree; I'm not really interested in "what if" scenarios, either. Those are good for making movies, not so much for real lives. I'm really looking for more of "what is likely" scenarios, which I'm seeing very little of. I see a lot of pats on the heads and dismissals as well as worst-case and what if scenarios. Neither are very helpful, IMO.

 

What countries are you speaking of? I'd love to read about that! I haven't seen really anything, other than the one case in Senegal, which seems to have been caught and contained, thankfully!

[Mama Geek]

I am of the camp of prepare for the worst and hope for the best.  I don't think that our government would be honest in the early stages of an outbreak here and I don't think our healthcare system is good enough to deal with a large outbreak in this country.  I also think it would cause wide spread panic here.  I have been reading a survivalist forum that has been discussing this for months.  Someone on there showed that this was following an exponential growth curve at least a month ago.  It really wasn't a surprise to see it in the news.

[Jean in Newcastle]

There is no reason for there to be some kind of a cover up in the United States.  We have the medicines and the facilities to cure it.  That's why the missionary doctors who have had it have been flown here.  If there was a case here it would be stupid to hide it from an epidemiological standpoint because you would want to track down everyone who was exposed to get them treatment.  That is how you contain it.  

[Okra]

I agree that people are scared of Ebola, or dismiss it.  I think a major problem is that so many health care workers are getting sick.  Not only does this lead to not as many health care workers, it also causes less health care workers to want to volunteer to help.  I am not in the field of healthcare, but it seems to me if I was I would have to think long and hard if I was going to volunteer my services.  I have a family with children.  I'm not certain I would want to risk catching Ebola when there is a 50% mortality rate.  I wouldn't judge anyone who wanted to stay away.  But, this leads to a terrible cycle with Ebola spreading.

 

It seems that if health care workers could keep themselves safe, then more volunteers would be willing to join the fight, in turn helping get the crises under control.

[Slartibartfast]

It seems very contagious but only through fluids. Someone coughing on someone wouldn't spread the illness but if someone vomited on something and it wasn't cleaned up properly, particularly in a high traffic area, then that would expose many people.

 

If someone was on a plane and then threw up on the plane...that would be bad.

 

Many animals can get it and they do spread the illness but they don't know exactly how many animals can get it.

 

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ebolas-deadly-jump-from-animal-to-animal-140730.htm

[Slartibartfast]

There is no reason for there to be some kind of a cover up in the United States.  We have the medicines and the facilities to cure it.  That's why the missionary doctors who have had it have been flown here.  If there was a case here it would be stupid to hide it from an epidemiological standpoint because you would want to track down everyone who was exposed to get them treatment.  That is how you contain it.

Exactly, our best weapon against this sort of contagion is education and information. They wouldn't hide it, that would be the worst thing they could do.

 

It isn't just our healthcare that makes first world countries deal with something like that better. Superstitions, eating certain animals such as rodents or non-human primates, or just certain traditions such as touching the dead, even though they died of an infectious disease, make other countries more vulnerable. I don't think most Americans would eat a bat but in the middle of a huge Ebola outbreak they banned eating bats because bats carry the illness.

 

I think we all realize even when a country attempts to ban something that is traditional there are plenty of people who are "my mom fed me Ebola-laden fruit bats and I was fine" and so they just keep doing what they were doing.

[Aura]

It seems very contagious but only through fluids. Someone coughing on someone wouldn't spread the illness but if someone vomited on something and it wasn't cleaned up properly, particularly in a high traffic area, then that would expose many people.

 

If someone was on a plane and then threw up on the plane...that would be bad.

 

Many animals can get it and they do spread the illness but they don't know exactly how many animals can get it. Birds can get it but can chickens?

 

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ebolas-deadly-jump-from-animal-to-animal-140730.htm

 

But this doesn't appear to be true. Saliva and mucus contains the virus. If someone coughs on you or in your direct path, and you inhale the droplets or even if you get it in your eyes, you could easily become infected. This is technically not the same as a virus being airborne, but that has to do with how big the size of the virus particles in the air are and how long they stay suspended in the air. It doesn't mean that you can't get it if someone coughs on you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But this doesn't appear to be true. Saliva and mucus contains the virus. If someone coughs on you or in your direct path, and you inhale the droplets or even if you get it in your eyes, you could easily become infected. This is technically not the same as a virus being airborne, but that has to do with how big the size of the virus particles in the air are and how long they stay suspended in the air. It doesn't mean that you can't get it if someone coughs on you.

 

That is very unlikely but here is an article regarding airborn transmission between pigs and monkeys.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/10/5980553/ebola-outbreak-virus-aerosol-airborne-pigs-monkeys

[Aura]

There is no reason for there to be some kind of a cover up in the United States.  We have the medicines and the facilities to cure it.  That's why the missionary doctors who have had it have been flown here.  If there was a case here it would be stupid to hide it from an epidemiological standpoint because you would want to track down everyone who was exposed to get them treatment.  That is how you contain it.  

 

I completely agree! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I trust officials here in the U.S. to be honest about what's happening. Too often they distort, exaggerate or downplay the truth to suit their own needs. I guess I'm jaded. I feel like I have to always be reading between the lines and piecing the puzzle together from multiple sources. So I don't expect them to come out and say, "We have a confirmed case at XYZ, but we have quarantined the person, are tracking down those that may have been exposed, and are taking all precautions." I expect them to DO this, just not say that they did. LOL

[Jean in Newcastle]

I completely agree! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I trust officials here in the U.S. to be honest about what's happening. Too often they distort, exaggerate or downplay the truth to suit their own needs. I guess I'm jaded. I feel like I have to always be reading between the lines and piecing the puzzle together from multiple sources. So I don't expect them to come out and say, "We have a confirmed case at XYZ, but we have quarantined the person, are tracking down those that may have been exposed, and are taking all precautions." I expect them to DO this, just not say that they did. LOL

So?  If they've quarantined the person, have tracked down those that have been exposed and are taking all precautions, that's all they need to do.  Why do they have to tell us?  Though depending on how people were exposed, they most likely will tell us because using the media is one way that they track down those that have been exposed.  However, keeping hysteria and all the attendant mob reactions can be a good reason for them to do it quietly if at all possible.  That isn't a conspiracy - that's just wisdom.

[Slartibartfast]

So?  If they've quarantined the person, have tracked down those that have been exposed and are taking all precautions, that's all they need to do.  Why do they have to tell us?  Though depending on how people were exposed, they most likely will tell us because using the media is one way that they track down those that have been exposed.  However, keeping hysteria and all the attendant mob reactions can be a good reason for them to do it quietly if at all possible.  That isn't a conspiracy - that's just wisdom.

I think Donald Trump is a good example as to why someone might hesitate to inform the public fully. He has been completely unhinged.

 

Most of the public has behaved rational and have not degenerated into hysteria at the smallest twinkle of a problem.

[Laura Corin]

You might like the podcast on this page - How Deadly is Ebola.  It's a BBC radio popular statistics programme.

 

L

[Aura]

That is very unlikely but here is an article regarding airborn transmission between pigs and monkeys.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/10/5980553/ebola-outbreak-virus-aerosol-airborne-pigs-monkeys

 

Very interesting article! Thanks! Eight inches isn't very much space to keep between animals if you don't want them getting each other sick, regardless of whether it's airborne or not.  :glare: Animals are messy.

[JoJosMom]

There is no reason for there to be some kind of a cover up in the United States.  We have the medicines and the facilities to cure it.  That's why the missionary doctors who have had it have been flown here.  If there was a case here it would be stupid to hide it from an epidemiological standpoint because you would want to track down everyone who was exposed to get them treatment.  That is how you contain it.  

 

 

This may be quibbling, but I disagree with the bolded portion.  Ebola is a virus; there is no cure.  We have the medical facilities that provide a high level of supportive care while the body itself fights the virus.  The "medicines" that have been used, I believe, are derivations of the antibodies of people who have survived the disease.

 

As for "what if" scenarios, I think that they are valuable in that they can be used as strategic planning tools, but it can be overwhelming when we get caught up in "the end of the world is nigh" type thinking.

 

As for Ebola itself, I agree that, right now, the largest issue is it's location in places where medical care is decidely poor.  My biggest fear, however, is the capability of viruses to mutate. It may not be readily capable of airborne transmission now, but that does not mean the virus itself (or themselves) will not change.

[Aura]

So?  If they've quarantined the person, have tracked down those that have been exposed and are taking all precautions, that's all they need to do.  Why do they have to tell us?  Though depending on how people were exposed, they most likely will tell us because using the media is one way that they track down those that have been exposed.  However, keeping hysteria and all the attendant mob reactions can be a good reason for them to do it quietly if at all possible.  That isn't a conspiracy - that's just wisdom.

 

Because it increases the chances that the virus would spread. There's more chance that someone is going to be exposed and become infected and not realize it until they've passed it on to someone else.

 

If people know that it's been found in their area, or where they've been, then they can be on the alert towards possible exposure. And by not being honest up front, when it does come out...and it will...then people will be even less likely to trust officials and that would make things worse.

[Pawz4me]

I completely agree! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I trust officials here in the U.S. to be honest about what's happening. Too often they distort, exaggerate or downplay the truth to suit their own needs. I guess I'm jaded. I feel like I have to always be reading between the lines and piecing the puzzle together from multiple sources. So I don't expect them to come out and say, "We have a confirmed case at XYZ, but we have quarantined the person, are tracking down those that may have been exposed, and are taking all precautions." I expect them to DO this, just not say that they did. LOL

 

This isn't aimed at you specifically, but I feel compelled to point out that feeling an issue is distorted, exaggerated and/or downplayed by the government or the media or the citizenry in general is totally subjective.  We see that every year during flu season on this very board, with some posters thinking people are over-reacting (to the illness or the need to get the vaccine) and others thinking that people aren't taking it seriously enough.

[vonfirmath]

Anyone up to another round of Ebola discussion? I would really like to talk about this with those who (1) don't dismiss it because it doesn't affect them, and (2) can help me sort through the varying claims and numbers.

 

To start with, here's a rundown on some of the things I've been reading: Currently, Ebola spreads exponentially in Liberia, and Ebola is surging in places it was beaten back. Liberia in particular has lost the ability to deal with this. I shudder at the thought of what lays in the future for this already poor nation. It's also popping up in other African nations.

 

:( I'd hoped the lack of news meant that Ebola had gone back underground! This is really bad news. I'm reading -Spillover- right now, which talks a -lot- about Ebola. But I'm not done yet to see what conclusions it draws!

 

We've got a children's school in Liberia we support. As of the last letter we got, they have not been affected by ebola but we're still praying for them.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Because it increases the chances that the virus would spread. There's more chance that someone is going to be exposed and become infected and not realize it until they've passed it on to someone else.

 

If people know that it's been found in their area, or where they've been, then they can be on the alert towards possible exposure. And by not being honest up front, when it does come out...and it will...then people will be even less likely to trust officials and that would make things worse.

Nobody, including the government (which, by the way is not some monolithic "them" but is composed of many different levels of government from local up to national) wants the virus to spread.  That is why they typically use the media to tell people when there is a measles outbreak or any other infectious disease.  The only reason to possibly limit the media coverage of an ebola exposure is to limit hysteria in an already contained situation.  If the "government" did keep an uncontained situation quiet, it would be the most stupid thing they ever did because it would spread out of control and their secret would come out immediately.  

[Aura]

Nobody, including the government (which, by the way is not some monolithic "them" but is composed of many different levels of government from local up to national) wants the virus to spread.  That is why they typically use the media to tell people when there is a measles outbreak or any other infectious disease.  The only reason to possibly limit the media coverage of an ebola exposure is to limit hysteria in an already contained situation.  If the "government" did keep an uncontained situation quiet, it would be the most stupid thing they ever did because it would spread out of control and their secret would come out immediately.  

LOL...I agree with you!! I just don't trust the government to not do something stupid.

[Aura]

I found this blog: Pathogen Perspectives, which had some great information from virologist C.J. Peters. One particular quote, and this really expresses my concerns:

 

One final question I asked, on behalf of the fear-mongering doomsayers on Twitter: :Is this Ebola epidemic a threat to humanity?

Dr. Peters.: No. It may very well decimate Africa. Africa is in real trouble, but it is not a threat to humanity and it won't cause a pandemic.

There. You heard that from the Quintessential Virus Hunter himself. And please don't mistake this for denial that this Ebola epidemic is a global problem...it's definitely a global problem. We've already clearly stated that this is a problem that absolutely requires a global response effort. But that's not the same as claiming it will cause a pandemic or destroy humanity. We good? Good.

 

Can you imagine Africa being decimated? The very thought is heartbreaking.

[justasque]

This is an interesting podcast and article about Ebola in first-world countries, from the Canadian radio program White Coat Black Art. The host is an ER doc in the Canadian health care system.  It addresses many of the questions the OP asked.

[duckabell]

I think you have leads on a lot of good information.There were quite a few new articles put out today as well.  I just recently finished "The Hot Zone" which talks about an outbreak of Ebola in monkeys in the US and has a lot of information on what was known of Ebola at the time it was written.

 

It is troubling to me how the growth is starting to be exponential and doubling. While an outbreak here in the US could happen, I'm not too worried right now. We would have the health care necessary to treat isolated or small breakouts. If the number of cases were to grow then it would tax our system and health care providers. I don't think it's that likely to become an epidemic here as long as health officials are honest with the public and the public helps with tracking down cases, contacts, etc. 

 

I hope that some of the vaccines can be developed quickly and they can get the resources needed to these countries. The ethics and strategies behind containing epidemics intrigues me as epidemiology was one of my favorite college classes. 

[Slartibartfast]

I am *more* concerned about the cold that is going around than I am Ebola.

[gardenmom5]

I am *more* concerned about the cold that is going around than I am Ebola.

 

I assume you mean the "cold, that isn't really a cold" (an enterovirus 68?) and has sent some kids to ICU, and at least 1000 to drs and ERs to the point they were tested as "more than a cold" in 10 states?  (and spreading fast.)

 

Yeah - that one concern's me more.

[WagsWife]

There is no reason for there to be some kind of a cover up in the United States. We have the medicines and the facilities to cure it. That's why the missionary doctors who have had it have been flown here. If there was a case here it would be stupid to hide it from an epidemiological standpoint because you would want to track down everyone who was exposed to get them treatment. That is how you contain it.

From what I have read, we don't have medicine to cure it. The medicine that was given to the doctors in Atlanta was a trial medicine, and they did not have much of it to start with. In addition to the first two American doctors, it was also given to a couple of other patients which used up all the supply. I read it takes 6 months to make the medicine, so it is not as easy as just whipping up some more. Even so, it was not medicine to cure the virus, it helped control/lesson the symptoms.

 

That being said. I am not really all that concerned. It sounds to me like the differences in cultures and sanitation would make it unlikely for a large breakout to occur here...not impossible, but unlikely.

[lewelma]

As a Population Biologist in a previous life, I would have two questions as a researcher on this case.

 

1) Where is Ebola hiding between outbreaks?  It might be fruit bats, and their migration pattern might be changing.  I would want to find a way to remove Ebola from the fruit bats.

 

2) How will Ebola be evolving.  The high mortality rate and the very swift movement of the disease once contracted are actually slowing its spread.  The virus could infect more people if it was less virulent.  I would be expecting Ebola to head this way, and would be studying its evolution quite closely in order to produce a vaccine.

 

Ruth in NZ

[vonfirmath]

As a Population Biologist in a previous life, I would have two questions as a researcher on this case.

 

1) Where is Ebola hiding between outbreaks?  It might be fruit bats, and their migration pattern might be changing.  I would want to find a way to remove Ebola from the fruit bats.

 

This is the question that comes up over and over in _Spillover_ and it details the many efforts that are made to find the reservoir.

[PhotoGal]

Flu claims from 3000 - 49000 people per year in the US, depending on severity of the flu that year (CDC figures).

 

We're scared of Ebola because it's something we're not used to. We don't live our lives in terror at the coming flu season, and realistically, flu kills a lot of people every single year. It's the whole being scared of flying but happy to get in a car scenario.

 

Unless we work in government health policy or in research, there is so little we can do about Ebola that it's crazy to worry about it affecting us personally.

 

Of course it's a tragedy for those countries where there are outbreaks. And it is always concerning when a disease 'gets away' from the expected path of how it will develop, be contained and cease.

 

 

Because the flu doesn't kill 50% of the people who catch it...

[PhotoGal]

I am not *that* comforted by it not being airborne. Think of the stomach virus. That is not airborne, it is usually spread by fecal/oral. Yet it has no problem spreading around. Studies have shown only about 2/3 of people wash their hands after using a public bathroom. So...  

 

That said, even though I don't feel the spread would be contained in the U.S. - there isn't much I can do about it. Hopefully things will start to improve. My heart breaks for those already affected.

[Slartibartfast]

I assume you mean the "cold, that isn't really a cold" (an enterovirus 68?) and has sent some kids to ICU, and at least 1000 to drs and ERs to the point they were tested as "more than a cold" in 10 states?  (and spreading fast.)

 

Yeah - that one concern's me more.

Yep, that's the one.

[gardenmom5]

people who die from flu tend to be immunosuppressed/vulnerable already.  the young, the old, the infirm/ill from other illness.  people who are healthy tend to recover.

 

ebola hits those who are healthy.  (as well as vulnerable.)

but also keep in mind - the medical facilities in these countries is not the same as here.  here we have greater ability to give nutrients and adequate hydration to keep a patient going.

 

Because the flu doesn't kill 50% of the people who catch it...

 

[Reefgazer]

There are several different strains of Ebola-type viruses; some spread easily through the air (Ebola Reston), some not so much.  The strain in this article spreads easily through air, but this is also not the same strain that is currently wreaking havoc in Africa, so it is not helpful in analyzing the current situation.

 

Anyway, I am suspicious of our government being truthful; history suggests otherwise.  A mere 2 months ago, the CDC was confidently saying Ebola would not reach our shores.  By the end of August, they were saying it was *likely*.  It's true that contact with bodily fluids is required to be infected.  But mucous, sputum, and droplets in a cough are all versions of bodily fluids, even though the viral load might be quit low in those fluids.  Really, all it takes in one sick person from an Ebola-infected country to come into this country, get visibly sick after arrival, and vomit on unsuspecting health-care workers in some hospital.  That's not at all an unlikely possibility. 

 

There are economic reasons not to be truthful to the American people about this virus; quarantines are expensive, and quarantines from particular countries can be a political hot potato, which is why I think the government would be unlikely to be truthful even if an Ebola event did occur in this country.  It would be politically more palatable to quietly track down a patients contacts without telling them why and first observe before making any statement whatsoever. 

That is very unlikely but here is an article regarding airborn transmission between pigs and monkeys.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/10/5980553/ebola-outbreak-virus-aerosol-airborne-pigs-monkeys

 

[Reefgazer]

Because it is our job as citizens to evaluate the evidence and make a decision on whether or not we agree with how our elected officials/government appointees are handling our national affairs.  People should also have the right to isolate themselves and take protective measures to slow the soread of the virus, if they choose to do so, no matter how paranoid that may seem.

So?  If they've quarantined the person, have tracked down those that have been exposed and are taking all precautions, that's all they need to do.  Why do they have to tell us?  Though depending on how people were exposed, they most likely will tell us because using the media is one way that they track down those that have been exposed.  However, keeping hysteria and all the attendant mob reactions can be a good reason for them to do it quietly if at all possible.  That isn't a conspiracy - that's just wisdom.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There are several different strains of Ebola-type viruses; some spread easily through the air (Ebola Reston), some not so much.  The strain in this article spreads easily through air, but this is also not the same strain that is currently wreaking havoc in Africa, so it is not helpful in analyzing the current situation.

 

Anyway, I am suspicious of our government being truthful; history suggests otherwise.  A mere 2 months ago, the CDC was confidently saying Ebola would not reach our shores.  By the end of August, they were saying it was *likely*.  It's true that contact with bodily fluids is required to be infected.  But mucous, sputum, and droplets in a cough are all versions of bodily fluids, even though the viral load might be quit low in those fluids.  Really, all it takes in one sick person from an Ebola-infected country to come into this country, get visibly sick after arrival, and vomit on unsuspecting health-care workers in some hospital.  That's not at all an unlikely possibility. 

 

There are economic reasons not to be truthful to the American people about this virus; quarantines are expensive, and quarantines from particular countries can be a political hot potato, which is why I think the government would be unlikely to be truthful even if an Ebola event did occur in this country.  It would be politically more palatable to quietly track down a patients contacts without telling them why and first observe before making any statement whatsoever.

The host was also pigs, which tend to carry the illness more in their lungs. I suppose if the American pigs became infected we might be in trouble.

 

I didn't link it because I was concerned about it being airborn but it was really the only example I noticed where it was observed more closely.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Because it is our job as citizens to evaluate the evidence and make a decision on whether or not we agree with how our elected officials/government appointees are handling our national affairs.  People should also have the right to isolate themselves and take protective measures to slow the soread of the virus, if they choose to do so, no matter how paranoid that may seem.

Then you should quarantine yourself now and take protective measures because the government cannot protect you from all possible exposure.  It isn't possible for them to do so.  I'm not being snarky in saying that.  

[gardenmom5]

There are several different strains of Ebola-type viruses; some spread easily through the air (Ebola Reston), some not so much.  The strain in this article spreads easily through air, but this is also not the same strain that is currently wreaking havoc in Africa,

 

  

 

there are two ebola strains currently active.  the second outbreak is in the democratic republic of the congo and dates from the beginning of august.  It is unrelated to the larger outbreak in west africa.  but of course, others were infected before patient zero died.

 

 

eta: as to the 50% mortality of the west African outbreak: it is a continuing outbreak so there are new infections in the numbers of people who are alive.  some of them simply haven't been sick long enough to tell if they will recover, or not.  in practical terms- the mortality percentage will be higher.

 

[Reefgazer]

Well, the point wasn't to quarantine myself now (which is a rather ridiculous statement because it missed the point of the post), but to have access to information so that I can decide when to do so.  I am not asking the government to protect me; I am asking for truthfulness in order to protect myself.

Then you should quarantine yourself now and take protective measures because the government cannot protect you from all possible exposure.  It isn't possible for them to do so.  I'm not being snarky in saying that.  

 

 

[PrincessMommy]

people who die from flu tend to be immunosuppressed/vulnerable already.  the young, the old, the infirm/ill from other illness.  people who are healthy tend to recover.

 

ebola hits those who are healthy.  (as well as vulnerable.)

but also keep in mind - the medical facilities in these countries is not the same as here.  here we have greater ability to give nutrients and adequate hydration to keep a patient going.

 

It is also the manner in which people die of Ebola that is scary.  Bleeding out of very orifice and turning organs to mush is pretty scary stuff.  The stuff described in "Hot Zone" is the stuff horror movies are made of.

[acsnmama]

We do have better sanitation and facilities to treat patients with infectious diseases. I am not paranoid about Ebola, but I find the topic very interesting. After I had not heard any news about Ebola for a couple of weeks, I went searching for news updates. I was sad to read that there are areas in Africa that are running out, or have run out of supplies, like the gowns, goggles, etc. I also read that there are some locations that are low on IV fluids, or have completely run out. Getting the outbreak under control in those locations, with lack of supplies is nearly impossible.

 

IF the virus was to come here, yes, I believe we would have an easier time treating it, BUT considering less severe viruses make their rounds so easily (like someone mentioned above, stomach bug) I don't imagine Ebola would be any different. I didn't have big concerns about the American workers being flown back here, as 3 people known to have the virus would be easy to contain. If someone had it, not knowing and went to the ER, that's different. Realistically it has the ability to spread like any other "non airborne" virus, and if an outbreak were to happen, I don't believe the USA can handle it as well as they say. Certainly better than Africa, but I think some doctors are overly confident. The procedures in isolation are good, but the more patients taken on, the more room for failure.

 

I am so sad for the locations in Africa battling this disease.

[vonfirmath]

It is also the manner in which people die of Ebola that is scary.  Bleeding out of very orifice and turning organs to mush is pretty scary stuff.  The stuff described in "Hot Zone" is the stuff horror movies are made of.

 

According to _Spillover_ the horror stuff described in _Hot Zone_ is not really accurate.

[mommymilkies]

There are several different strains of Ebola-type viruses; some spread easily through the air (Ebola Reston), some not so much. The strain in this article spreads easily through air, but this is also not the same strain that is currently wreaking havoc in Africa, so it is not helpful in analyzing the current situation.

 

Anyway, I am suspicious of our government being truthful; history suggests otherwise. A mere 2 months ago, the CDC was confidently saying Ebola would not reach our shores. By the end of August, they were saying it was *likely*. It's true that contact with bodily fluids is required to be infected. But mucous, sputum, and droplets in a cough are all versions of bodily fluids, even though the viral load might be quit low in those fluids. Really, all it takes in one sick person from an Ebola-infected country to come into this country, get visibly sick after arrival, and vomit on unsuspecting health-care workers in some hospital. That's not at all an unlikely possibility.

 

There are economic reasons not to be truthful to the American people about this virus; quarantines are expensive, and quarantines from particular countries can be a political hot potato, which is why I think the government would be unlikely to be truthful even if an Ebola event did occur in this country. It would be politically more palatable to quietly track down a patients contacts without telling them why and first observe before making any statement whatsoever.

I agree. I don't really think the government has nefarious reasons for hiding outbreaks if they happen, too. Can you imagine the hysteria? It would be prudent to downplay any potential risks except at the healthcare provider level. I'm not worried about Ebola but I'll admit the CDC doesn't have a great record for safe storage of diseases. What, three recent stories of almost eradicated diseases found in drawers or storage rooms forgotten? Something like that? It's easy to see why some people may be mistrusting.

[Slartibartfast]

We do have better sanitation and facilities to treat patients with infectious diseases. I am not paranoid about Ebola, but I find the topic very interesting. After I had not heard any news about Ebola for a couple of weeks, I went searching for news updates. I was sad to read that there are areas in Africa that are running out, or have run out of supplies, like the gowns, goggles, etc. I also read that there are some locations that are low on IV fluids, or have completely run out. Getting the outbreak under control in those locations, with lack of supplies is nearly impossible.

 

IF the virus was to come here, yes, I believe we would have an easier time treating it, BUT considering less severe viruses make their rounds so easily (like someone mentioned above, stomach bug) I don't imagine Ebola would be any different. I didn't have big concerns about the American workers being flown back here, as 3 people known to have the virus would be easy to contain. If someone had it, not knowing and went to the ER, that's different. Realistically it has the ability to spread like any other "non airborne" virus, and if an outbreak were to happen, I don't believe the USA can handle it as well as they say. Certainly better than Africa, but I think some doctors are overly confident. The procedures in isolation are good, but the more patients taken on, the more room for failure.

 

I am so sad for the locations in Africa battling this disease.

 

It isn't all that easy for it to spread.

 

Part of the problem is the people eating bush meat such as bats. Bats carry it as do other animals that are eaten in Africa such as non-human primates and rats.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/why-west-africans-keep-hunting-and-eating-bush-meat-despite-ebola-concerns/

 

The problem really is that they need an entirely different source of protein to avoid this. What else are they supposed to eat?

 

It isn't *just* that our health care is more advanced, but that people aren't usually eating bats. It does impact squirrels, raccoon, and deer so it isn't just a concern with keeping it under control in the human population but in the animals as well. There are many people in the US who do rely on hunted meat for protein. 

[Aura]

Ebola Outbreak is a "Serious Threat" to Liberia's Existence

 

Oxford study predicts 15 more countries are at risk of Ebola exposure

 

The more this spreads, the more likely it is to come here. And as some others have pointed out, we have enough of a problem with viruses being spread around that I feel that if Ebola comes here, it's going to spread, too.

 

Without knowing exactly how easily this might spread inside *our* society, I don't know what level of precautions to take.

 

Apparently, it's easily spread in west Africa, but they live differently than we do, so I don't really expect the same here. BUT knowing that if you do catch this virus, you can toss a coin as to whether you will survive it or not makes it worse than any other virus that's gone around.

 

The enterovirus, the flu, the noravirus, etc....when things like this go around, I make note and stock up on supplies and double my efforts at washing hands and avoiding exposure. This is different, IMO, so I'm watching it much more closely.

 

BTW, this whole epidemic is like watching 9/11, or the tsunami that hit India, or the one that hit Japan. It's surreal, but yet you know that it IS REAL, and that so, so many people are dead and dying and going to die because of it.  :(

[Aura]

It isn't all that easy for it to spread. Apparently, it's easy enough in densely populated areas.

 

Part of the problem is the people eating bush meat such as bats. Bats carry it as do other animals that are eaten in Africa such as non-human primates and rats.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/why-west-africans-keep-hunting-and-eating-bush-meat-despite-ebola-concerns/

 

The problem really is that they need an entirely different source of protein to avoid this. What else are they supposed to eat? Exactly!! Sounds a lot like, "Let them eat cake."  :mad: 

 

It isn't *just* that our health care is more advanced, but that people aren't usually eating bats. It does impact squirrels, raccoon, and deer so it isn't just a concern with keeping it under control in the human population but in the animals as well. There are many people in the US who do rely on hunted meat for protein. 

 

 

Part of the problem is very likely eating contaminated meat. But it's only one of many variables. I personally don't think the exponential spread comes from eating contaminated meat. But you raise some very good points. I know a lot of people that hunt for food. And we do have meat recalls because things occasionally are not properly handled and such. So, I guess it's not just people carrying it over that we need to be watching.

[acsnmama]

It isn't all that easy for it to spread.

 

Part of the problem is the people eating bush meat such as bats. Bats carry it as do other animals that are eaten in Africa such as non-human primates and rats.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/why-west-africans-keep-hunting-and-eating-bush-meat-despite-ebola-concerns/

 

The problem really is that they need an entirely different source of protein to avoid this. What else are they supposed to eat?

 

It isn't *just* that our health care is more advanced, but that people aren't usually eating bats. It does impact squirrels, raccoon, and deer so it isn't just a concern with keeping it under control in the human population but in the animals as well. There are many people in the US who do rely on hunted meat for protein.

I definitely don't dispute that, however, it has been shown through this outbreak that it IS easy to spread person to person, if it weren't, people wouldn't be wearing hazmat suits (or the like) to treat these patients. They wouldn't be getting sprayed with bleach upon leaving the treatment area. I do believe many have gotten it from contaminated food, and/or exposure to dead animals, but it is spreading like wildfire, and many articles have conflicting information, like stated by the OP.

 

Some of the articles have been honest in stating they really don't have extensive research on Ebola. I appreciate that honesty, because I do believe that to be true.

[gardenmom5]

one of the *biggest* problems for contagion in Africa are funeral customs.  touching the body is very much part of the traditions - even if that person is covered in their own bodily fluids which contain a highly dangerous pathogen. 

 

there is also distrust of medical facilities - and there are many reported cases of families hiding their ill loved one (and they all eventually also get sick), or even going to far as to remove them from medical facilities.

people take taxis to get treated, throw up in it, but it is not decontaminated so the *next* person to ride in it is exposed.

those are just a few of the reasons this is spreading so badly.

 

Part of the problem is very likely eating contaminated meat. But it's only one of many variables. I personally don't think the exponential spread comes from eating contaminated meat. But you raise some very good points. I know a lot of people that hunt for food. And we do have meat recalls because things occasionally are not properly handled and such. So, I guess it's not just people carrying it over that we need to be watching.

 

[Katy]

A little bit from a nursing perspective - Ebola is a droplet protection disease, and it spreads just like stomach flu viruses do - a drop of vomit or saliva or vapor from flushing the toilet or even seminal fluid gets into the air and someone breathes it in or touches something with the virus on it and then touches themselves and they get the virus.  You see the HAZMAT suits only because it's so deadly, not because it's airborne.  Droplets can hang in the air for a certain number of feet though, and I'm not going to speculate how long that is because less than a year ago I read that our current droplet precautions were not adequate.  You don't need to worry about a pandemic of that sort in the United States because we will isolate and quarantine everyone who is potentially infected.  And because Ebola is so deadly it's extremely likely to be treated like an airborne infection here (patients put into isolation in a negative-pressure room with a separate ac system designed to keep tuberculosis from spreading).

 

If you're concerned about Ebola or about stomach flu (noroviruses and rotoviruses are much more likely), get rid of your other cleaning solutions and start to clean everything with bleach.  Bleach kills both, even when other solutions fail.  Pour straight bleach into the toilet, but otherwise get a spray bottle and make a solution of 10% bleach to 90% water.  Spray a rag with it, wipe a surface, let it sit wet for ten minutes.  I tend to think some exposure to bacteria is good for you, so I only do that after someone in our family is ill.  It does tend to make your home smell like a hotel room, and your clothes are likely to get bleach stains.

 

I wouldn't worry so much about flu either, because flu statistics are extremely skewed. If your great aunt breaks her hip, goes into the hospital, contracts the sort of hospital pneumonia people commonly get when they can't get up and exercise and are lying on their back all the time (not caused by a germ, just caused by circulatory issues), and then dies from said pneumonia, her respiratory distress related death counts for statistical purposes as being caused by influenza. 

 

I know a few medical missionaries in affected parts of Africa and they are unconcerned (they're even keeping their children there), so I really wouldn't worry if I were you.

[gardenmom5]

  I tend to think some exposure to bacteria is good for you, 

 

2dd (doing pharm rotations) said she thinks the reason she doesn't have allergies (or get sick much) is how much dirt she ate as a child.  lots of exposure to build immunity.

 

she routinely did face plants in our sand box. . . . . oh - with her mouth wide open of course. :svengo:

[ocelotmom]

A little bit from a nursing perspective - Ebola is a droplet protection disease, and it spreads just like stomach flu viruses do - a drop of vomit or saliva or vapor from flushing the toilet or even seminal fluid gets into the air and someone breathes it in or touches something with the virus on it and then touches themselves and they get the virus.  You see the HAZMAT suits only because it's so deadly, not because it's airborne.  Droplets can hang in the air for a certain number of feet though, and I'm not going to speculate how long that is because less than a year ago I read that our current droplet precautions were not adequate.  You don't need to worry about a pandemic of that sort in the United States because we will isolate and quarantine everyone who is potentially infected.  And because Ebola is so deadly it's extremely likely to be treated like an airborne infection here (patients put into isolation in a negative-pressure room with a separate ac system designed to keep tuberculosis from spreading).

 

I think the distinction between airborne and droplet is causing a lot of confusion for laypeople. The CDC says it's not airborne, and people interpret that to mean it can't be spread through anything but direct contact, and that the CDC must be lying if it's spread through droplets, when they're actually using technical terms correctly.