Is ebola worse than swine flu?

[Anonymous]

Or SARS? What's your opinion and what is it based on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or SARS? What's your opinion and what is it based on?

It is if you get it, considering it kills like 65% of people who contract it.

In terms of being communicable, less worrisome than swing flue (H1N1) or SARS.

[Anonymous]

In the sense that it will spread more? No idea. We'll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or SARS? What's your opinion and what is it based on?

It is if you get it, considering it kills like 65% of people who contract it.

In terms of being communicable, less worrisome than swing flue (H1N1) or SARS.

It kills 65% of people in West Africa. Ebola centers there have a limited number of beds and many people who are suspected to have Ebola are being turned away. I'm sure with proper medical care the mortality rate is a lot lower.
I recently saw a picture of a triage room in Liberia. It was a dirt floor with plastic tarps as walls. Standard of care here is a lot better.

[Anonymous]

F*ck yes. Have you read The Hot Zone? If not, you should.

[Anonymous]

Ebola is not easily spread (you have to come in contact with a sick person's fluids) but is very lethal.

[Anonymous]

Much worse.

We also have a vaccine for swine flu. No ebola vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Ebola is known to liquify internal organs.

It is one of several virus know as "hemmoragic fevers" - the key concept being "Hemorage."

Hemmorage = bleeding. Ebola typically causes blood to leak from many sites in veins/arteries all over the body. Bleeding from the eyes, ears and mouth is common, as is massive internal bleeding.

IF the body can produce enough antibodies fast enough, the virus can be overcome systemically.

If the medical care can replace enough of the leaked blood with a transfusion or fluids fast enough, there is a chance of survival.

Under primative conditions, as in Africa, the current strain has a 60 to 70% mortality rate.

Caught early and treated with modern hospital care, the mortality among healthy adults is probably somewhat lower.

[Anonymous]

There is usually an inverse relationship between viral spread and lethality, since in order to have a high infectious rate, the patient has to survive long enough to actually contaminate other people. Airborne viruses are more easily spread but generally less dangerous.

Typical flu and variant flus are easily transmitted through the air and apart from the 2009 variant have a low mortality.
SARS can be airborne and has a low to moderate mortality.
Ebola is not airborne and has a moderate to high mortality.

The fear that a highly lethal virus could mutate and become airborne and be a superkiller for a short while has been the topic of a few movies. Statistically speaking, such a mutation would probably cause it to become less lethal.

Also, research labs are well-equipped to create vaccines. The reason that Ebola treatments are not produced en masse is that nobody will pay the cost because Ebola occurs in poor African counties. Unless a deadly virus threatens the developed world, no one is going to open their wallet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is usually an inverse relationship between viral spread and lethality, since in order to have a high infectious rate, the patient has to survive long enough to actually contaminate other people. Airborne viruses are more easily spread but generally less dangerous.

Typical flu and variant flus are easily transmitted through the air and apart from the 2009 variant have a low mortality.
SARS can be airborne and has a low to moderate mortality.
Ebola is not airborne and has a moderate to high mortality.

The fear that a highly lethal virus could mutate and become airborne and be a superkiller for a short while has been the topic of a few movies. Statistically speaking, such a mutation would probably cause it to become less lethal.

Also, research labs are well-equipped to create vaccines. The reason that Ebola treatments are not produced en masse is that nobody will pay the cost because Ebola occurs in poor African counties. Unless a deadly virus threatens the developed world, no one is going to open their wallet.

Of course---it very dense populations like the US with lots of transmission opportunities---the high infectious rate makes it that much easier to spread like wildfire. When you have villages separated by miles and people walking those miles between--it can burn out on its own. Not going to happen once it is a US city.