Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Parsely]

Airborne transmission of Ebola virus has been hypothesized but not demonstrated in humans. While Ebola virus can be spread through airborne particles under experimental conditions in animals, this type of spread has not been documented during human EVD outbreaks in settings such as hospitals or households.

EVD among healthcare personnel and other persons is associated with direct contact with infected persons (or the bodies of persons who have died from EVD) and direct contact with body fluids from EVD patients.

Airborne transmission of EVD among humans has never been demonstrated in investigations that have described human-to-human transmission although hypothetical concerns about airborne transmission of EVD have been raised.

No.

[GavJ]

Even if it were airborne, which it is not, an airborne virus that isn't contagious until you have clear symptoms is still not that dangerous in the grand scheme of things.  Having infections move through people unaware is pretty much a requirement of the major world's pandemics, and ebola does not qualify.

The most deadly contagious disease of all -- malaria -- being a prime example. You can get infected by a mosquito and probably 95%+ of people who get it would have no idea when they got it or which mosquito, etc. and therefore can't self-quarantine themselves, making the only effective intervention blanket defenses for everybody, which is logistically difficult and expensive (either in buying and distributing and enforcing usage of nets or environmentally expensive by spraying pesticides).

By the way, it bears repeating that the big 5 non-contagious diseases utterly and completely dwarf contagious diseases in every way:
Cardiovascular disease +
Cancer +
Chronic respiratory diseases +
Alzheimer's +
Diabetes

= about 7,000x more deaths in the United States than:

[every single contagious disease there is, combined]

About as many people die from cardiovascular disease alone every TWO HOURS than the entire death toll of the ebola outbreak so far this year



Even the Spanish flu of 1918 barely killed more people in 1918 than chronic diseases and accidents did in just 1918! In other words, if we had a repeat of the most deadly pandemic in history, every single year forever, it would still only be about equally as dangerous as chronic and lifestyle disease and accidents.

[TamerVirus]

Ebola is only airborne if someone decides to invent a humidifier that runs on infected bodily fluid

Only 19.99!

[Sinistar]

I think you are on to something.

[scrdest]

@GavJ - the only reason why NCDs dwarf IDs is because we, you know, have the means to treat the former nowadays, even though they may be ineffective in some cases. Whereas we still don't have any fully effective treatment for most NCDs you mentioned.

If you want a honest comparison, compare the death rates pre-1900s. If someone you knew died, chances were it was an infectious disease rather than an NCD.

Also, exponential growth.

I agree with the point that a good virus, as far as the virus is concerned, is as non-lethal as possible.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

My brain is now off the hype mode it was in that caused me to post about the airbourne stuff.

I agree with the point that a good virus, as far as the virus is concerned, is as non-lethal as possible.

I wonder how much better our immune systems would be if we spent about a few months straight of childhood being repeatedly being hit with non-lethal viruses.

[Helgoland]

being repeatedly being hit with non-lethal viruses.

It's called vaccination, you know?

[alway]

And like many other types of organisms, there are quite many which are perfectly happy inside us, eating things like bacteria rather than infecting us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

They can even be used as a more targeted version of antibiotics, and which would also lack most of the side effects of antibiotics resulting from the killing off of beneficial bacteria. And without worrying about breeding every bacteria in your body into having antibiotic resistance. (of course, the problem with specifically targeted stuff like that is you need to know exactly what the cause is, since unlike antibiotics it wouldn't help at all for anything but the specific targeted bacteria)

[GavJ]

If you want a honest comparison, compare the death rates pre-1900s.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Yes, it was a different story in 1814, but none of us were alive then, so why do we care with regard to this thread? This is a current, 2014 outbreak of ebola, and if you are deciding whether to be scared of it or not, you should compare it to contemporary, 2014 alternative threats.

Nor do I really understand what you're trying to say about treatment comparisons. I don't see a significant difference. Alzheimer's is pretty much just as likely to kill you if you  get it as ebola is, treatment included. As is diabetes, I'd bet. As is cancer (maybe a bit less so).

More importantly, both ebola and most of these chronic diseases have voluntary choices you can make to avoid them. Yet people act extremely irrationally in the importance they place on anti-ebola voluntary choices (acting super paranoid in airports and government officials spending tons of resources to hunt people down for slight rumors, etc.) versus anti-chronic choices that are MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to save your life. Like exercising and not eating crap. Or on the government side, subsidizing things like cabbage instead of gallons upon gallons of high fructose corn syrup in agriculture bills... or work to better regulate environmental carcinogens from pollution, fracking, etc. Or instead of spending billions to rush research and stockpile ebola vaccines or antivirals, maybe spend some more money on healthy school lunches and save way more lives per dollar?

[GavJ]

Actually, if my math is right, I believe that indoor tanning alone (which is perhaps more blatantly and trivially a lifestyle choice than even diet or exercise are) is itself 10x more dangerous than all communicable diseases combined in America right now.

[TamerVirus]

Math? Screw that! We mass hysteria now

[Sheb]

Yeah, but a lot of the stuff that prevents those diseases are personal choices. I already eat healthy, exercise regularly, don't smoke, drink little and look around before crossing the street. So no need to hype about cancer, because even though it's much more likely to kill me eventually than Ebola, I can't do much more about it.

Also, cancer will kill me in 50-60 years, a terribad Ebola outbreak could kill me next year.

[scrdest]

If you want a honest comparison, compare the death rates pre-1900s.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Yes, it was a different story in 1814, but none of us were alive then, so why do we care with regard to this thread? This is a current, 2014 outbreak of ebola, and if you are deciding whether to be scared of it or not, you should compare it to contemporary, 2014 alternative threats.

Nor do I really understand what you're trying to say about treatment comparisons. I don't see a significant difference. Alzheimer's is pretty much just as likely to kill you if you  get it as ebola is, treatment included. As is diabetes, I'd bet. As is cancer (maybe a bit less so).

More importantly, both ebola and most of these chronic diseases have voluntary choices you can make to avoid them. Yet people act extremely irrationally in the importance they place on anti-ebola voluntary choices (acting super paranoid in airports and government officials spending tons of resources to hunt people down for slight rumors, etc.) versus anti-chronic choices that are MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to save your life. Like exercising and not eating crap. Or on the government side, subsidizing things like cabbage instead of gallons upon gallons of high fructose corn syrup in agriculture bills... or work to better regulate environmental carcinogens from pollution, fracking, etc. Or instead of spending billions to rush research and stockpile ebola vaccines or antivirals, maybe spend some more money on healthy school lunches and save way more lives per dollar?

Pre-1900 because that data shows you how dangerous, exactly, IDs can get if you DON'T have all the nice advantage of treatment availability we do nowadays. Basically, apples and oranges - you're comparing how bad IDs+treatment are vs. how bad NCDs+no treatment are, and your claim that it only pertrains to the current, 2014 outbreak is rendered null and void once you suggest a switch in policy.

Indoor tanning, bad diet, smoking et cetera are all risk factors that are, as Sheb said, mostly lifestyle choices. The main effective way of preventing those would be to force people to live healthy at gunpoint (/hyperbole). A large percentage of those who do those things is aware of the risks but decides to take them anyway. ID prevention amounts to 'pray that person is not infected' as far as individual people do.

Also, CVD, cancer, Alzheimer's et al are, broadly speaking, long-onset diseases. It takes X years for them to develop (with some exceptions, but nonetheless). That's a huuuuuge window of opportunity for treatment development without harm to the person, then some more before the disease actually kills the person. Meanwhile, once you get a nasty ID, if it's gonna be lethal, it's gonna be lethal within days, plus you can get it anytime.

[penguinofhonor]

A great overview of the progressing collapse of the United States.

[Orange Wizard]

Yaaay.