Reply to Is ebola worse than swine flu?

Forum Index » Health and Medicine

Reply to "Is ebola worse than swine flu?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics