Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Here's some science. Assuming that Lancet is an acceptable source for most everyone here.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ebola virus is one of the most virulent pathogens, killing a very high proportion of patients within 5-7 days. Two outbreaks of fulminating haemorrhagic fever occurred in northern Gabon in 1996, with a 70% case-fatality rate. During both outbreaks we identified some individuals in direct contact with sick patients who never developed symptoms. We aimed to determine whether these individuals were indeed infected with Ebola virus, and how they maintained asymptomatic status.

...
INTERPRETATION: This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

This does not agree with my world view...therefore it is false. Nice try liberal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's some science. Assuming that Lancet is an acceptable source for most everyone here.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ebola virus is one of the most virulent pathogens, killing a very high proportion of patients within 5-7 days. Two outbreaks of fulminating haemorrhagic fever occurred in northern Gabon in 1996, with a 70% case-fatality rate. During both outbreaks we identified some individuals in direct contact with sick patients who never developed symptoms. We aimed to determine whether these individuals were indeed infected with Ebola virus, and how they maintained asymptomatic status.

...
INTERPRETATION: This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

Did they have enough copies of the virus to infect someone else?

[Anonymous]

By copies of the virus, I mean viral load. If the viral load remains small, they aren't contagious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here's some science. Assuming that Lancet is an acceptable source for most everyone here.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ebola virus is one of the most virulent pathogens, killing a very high proportion of patients within 5-7 days. Two outbreaks of fulminating haemorrhagic fever occurred in northern Gabon in 1996, with a 70% case-fatality rate. During both outbreaks we identified some individuals in direct contact with sick patients who never developed symptoms. We aimed to determine whether these individuals were indeed infected with Ebola virus, and how they maintained asymptomatic status.

...
INTERPRETATION: This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

This does not agree with my world view...therefore it is false. Nice try liberal!

I am liberal but you don't understand what I'm saying. This Lancet study showed that asymptomatic (no sx such as fever, bleeding) and replicative (meaning the virus is present in the body and is multiplying) Ebola infection has been found in he past.

The implications are that some infected persons never get symptoms, but they have the virus in the body. In other words, they are carriers but they don't look sick. Do they shed the virus? Can someone else become infected through their sneezes and secretions while appearing to be symptomless? Do we know all of the science, and more importantly why don't we deserve to know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some science. Assuming that Lancet is an acceptable source for most everyone here.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ebola virus is one of the most virulent pathogens, killing a very high proportion of patients within 5-7 days. Two outbreaks of fulminating haemorrhagic fever occurred in northern Gabon in 1996, with a 70% case-fatality rate. During both outbreaks we identified some individuals in direct contact with sick patients who never developed symptoms. We aimed to determine whether these individuals were indeed infected with Ebola virus, and how they maintained asymptomatic status.

...
INTERPRETATION: This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

Did they have enough copies of the virus to infect someone else?

Yes, I've seen this before, that some people are asymptomatic. But I haven't seen that they are infectious carriers, like Typhoid Mary. Did these asymptomatic people infect anyone?

[Anonymous]

I have been on DCUM for years and have never seen so much traffic as in the last 48 hours. Someone is burying this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been on DCUM for years and have never seen so much traffic as in the last 48 hours. Someone is burying this thread.

Agreed. Let's make her job harder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

You don't know if anyone has contracted it through sneezing.

The science says it is in saliva and mucus. And if that is wrong, the conclusion becomes: we don't know all of "the science" yet.

But we're importing it anyway through casual travel and individual HCW traveling as they please. Hickox wants to bike. Spencer and Vinson chose subway, plane. Do we know their moment of contagiousness?

Sitting next to someone is not going to make you sick. Sitting next to someone bleeding, vomiting or crapping all over the place would be contagious. You don't get a fever and start spewing bodily fluids on the same day. That didn't happen with any of the people who've caught it by self monitoring. They get a fever and report it, having infected no one along the way.

Google "Patrick Sawyer," read about the 19 people he infected, directly or indirectly, and then get back to us. Sometimes, people are in denial and continue to go about their daily activities. Dr. Spencer came darn close to doing the same, and that's why he initially lied about the extent of his movements to first responders.

So I did google "Patrick Sawyer" and the people he infected all had direct contact with him. So many HCWs got infected because he lied about his exposure to Ebola and they thought he had malaria - plus he urinated on them. But the 200+ people on the planes with him, when he had diarrhea and vomiting - NONE OF THEM GOT EBOLA. So just chill - it' not that easy to get Ebola.

The people who were sent to pick him up from the airport by the conference he was attending did get it, guess you didn't read enough or are just reading what suits your conclusion. They weren't health care workers.

Sawyer was seriously ill when he left Monrovia, so it's no surprise that he was infectious. The fact is, people who are not symptomatic are not infectious. None of your grandstanding changes that.

I also would give the nurse a hug if I could. She's not only not infectious; she doesn't even have Ebola, as far as anyone can tell.

If you aren't quarantining those most likely to become symptomatic, you stand a chance of not catching them before the transition. It's not grandstanding, it's common sense. That's why the CDC has been quarantining non health care workers with direct contact. The differential treatment between health care workers and others with direct contact is for policy reasons, not science reasons.

It doesn't work. They did it with SARS in Canada. The statistical analysis afterwards showed that it prevented ZERO cases. It's a useless intervention that is expensive and a PITA.

All of the quarantining is because folks like you are ignorant and hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here's some science. Assuming that Lancet is an acceptable source for most everyone here.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10881895/

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ebola virus is one of the most virulent pathogens, killing a very high proportion of patients within 5-7 days. Two outbreaks of fulminating haemorrhagic fever occurred in northern Gabon in 1996, with a 70% case-fatality rate. During both outbreaks we identified some individuals in direct contact with sick patients who never developed symptoms. We aimed to determine whether these individuals were indeed infected with Ebola virus, and how they maintained asymptomatic status.

...
INTERPRETATION: This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

This does not agree with my world view...therefore it is false. Nice try liberal!

I know. It's as if the 'see no evil' monkeys are on the thread lol

[Anonymous]

Bottom line: if you can't pinpoint the time of contagion, you are taking risk. The nurse's right to not quarantine does not supercede someone else's right not to be 'risked'. It is also nobody's business if someone else decides to avoid that risk, even if you feel it's a perceived one. Who do you people think you are? It's amazing how much control progressives feel they deserve over others.

[Anonymous]

If the USA has 11 full bio containment beds at a total of 4 sites why wasn't Spencer transferred to the NIH [4 rooms, 7 beds], Emory [2],Nebraska [10], St Patrick [3 rooms 2 patients if necessary] etc? Why was he left at Bellevue?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-4-u-s-biocontainment-hospitals-that-are-stopping-ebola-video/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its not 70% fatal in the US, not even close. Everyone but Duncan has survived.

This is so much like the early days of HIV when kids were hounded out of classrooms and funeral homes wouldn't bury the dead. The arguments were similar. "Well the kid could cut himself and bleed or blah blah blah." It was a pretty ugly time.

We need to take precautions but we also need to not give in to fear. Imprisoning healthy people who gave of themselves in Africa is giving in to fear.

Grow some.

Why do you feel you should have control over others?

[Anonymous]

Canada following the lead of the Aussies-- suspending travel visas from the affected region:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/newsalert-canada-wont-issue-visas-residents-countries-widespread-185611328.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line: if you can't pinpoint the time of contagion, you are taking risk. The nurse's right to not quarantine does not supercede someone else's right not to be 'risked'. It is also nobody's business if someone else decides to avoid that risk, even if you feel it's a perceived one. Who do you people think you are? It's amazing how much control progressives feel they deserve over others.

Who do you think YOU are, that your interpretation of "perceived risk," should trump the recommendations of actual scientists and doctors?

I have no doubt that quarantine recommendations and/or laws will evolve as we get more information and evidence about the scope of the impact on the US, but to think that somehow you know best because of your own personal fears is breathtakingly arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on DCUM for years and have never seen so much traffic as in the last 48 hours. Someone is burying this thread.

Agreed. Let's make her job harder

Tonight being Halloween, site traffic should slow down. If it doesn't... you may have your answer.