Anonymous wrote:Excuse me please... are we still freaked out about Ebola or is it kind of over? I thought it was going to be the end of the world, no?

The election is over so there's no more need to whip people into a frenzy about it.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ohio-ebola-free-monitoring-20141105-story.html

The number of people who are being actively monitored for Ebola in New York has tripled to 357 people, none of whom has displayed any symptoms, city health officials announced Wednesday.

The vast majority of those being monitored arrived in New York in the last 21 days from West Africa, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation said in a statement. Those under monitoring are being checked out of “an abundance of caution,” the statement said.

Excuse me please... are we still freaked out about Ebola or is it kind of over? I thought it was going to be the end of the world, no?

I think that MSF has figured out that plasma-transfusion from a survivor is as close to a practical, usable, immediately-available "cure" as we have right now.

And, as the epidemic has grown, so has the pool of survivors (about 30% of those who contract it in Africa manage to survive).

Those Ebola survivors are the donor pool for plasma.

These facts, combined with prevention education and the construction of new crematoriums, seem to be making a difference for the better.

I believe the promising new vaccines will help contain this outbreak.

I also believe that as a result of the Ebola situation, the USA is better prepared for a more dangerous viral threat: deadly forms of influenza such as bird flu and swine flu - both of which mutate at a rate 100 times that of the Ebola/Marburg virus.

Some forms of influenza can, and probably will, mutate to become more communicable and more deadly.

1. Ebola cases in the US are going down and will soon be zero.

2. We are a very big country. "A few more" cases -- which aren't going to happen, will mean nothing in the scheme of things. We aren't going to see travel bans.

3. The epidemic is starting to recede in Africa (though there's a long way to go).

I know this is hard for folks banging the doomsday gong but there really is nothing to see here. You'll have to find something else to whip up hysteria over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

You keep going back to this talking point, as if it's a defense for allowing this easy to keep out virus into the US. Is that your real point, that it doesn't matter? It defies logic

It is already in the US. Let it go already.

not in the wild it isn't. allowing more potential cases to easily enter is stupid.

We're not going to quarantine or close our borders. Repeating the same thing on every page isn't going to change that. Just deal with it already.

A few more contacting ebola in the USA [from Duncans or Spencers] or infected military should result in travel bans and quarantines. If not, we are fools. Guess which continent has the most countries with travel restrictions? https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&language_id=ENG

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

You keep going back to this talking point, as if it's a defense for allowing this easy to keep out virus into the US. Is that your real point, that it doesn't matter? It defies logic

It is already in the US. Let it go already.

not in the wild it isn't. allowing more potential cases to easily enter is stupid.

We're not going to quarantine or close our borders. Repeating the same thing on every page isn't going to change that. Just deal with it already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

You keep going back to this talking point, as if it's a defense for allowing this easy to keep out virus into the US. Is that your real point, that it doesn't matter? It defies logic

It is already in the US. Let it go already.

not in the wild it isn't. allowing more potential cases to easily enter is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

You keep going back to this talking point, as if it's a defense for allowing this easy to keep out virus into the US. Is that your real point, that it doesn't matter? It defies logic

It is already in the US. Let it go already.

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

You keep going back to this talking point, as if it's a defense for allowing this easy to keep out virus into the US. Is that your real point, that it doesn't matter? It defies logic

OK, I'll speak slowly so you can understand. The virus is not going to mutate into something that is airborne. The hysterics have been saying this for months and it isn't happening.

The fear, again, is not that it becomes more lethal but that it becomes less lethal. If it becomes more lethal it will burn out quicker -- the hosts will die off and the virus will go with it sooner. If it becomes less lethal, more slow moving, hosts have it for longer and it spreads further.

Ebola and mutation:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/28/343734184/ebola-is-rapidly-mutating-as-it-spreads-across-west-africa

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola

http://m.wsj.com/articles/scientists-say-ebolas-transmission-route-unlikely-to-have-changed-1413475957?mobile=y

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic please?!??!

Any news on Spencer? And when is Ms. Hickox's 21 days over?

His condition has been upgraded to Stable in the last couple of days. Her end date is 11/12.

Sorry, that should say 11/10.

Thanks. Hopefully this phase will end uneventfully.

And onto phase II

Anonymous wrote:When people say they are afraid it will mutate, they mean into something thats airborne. Thats not going to happen.

The real fear should be that it mutates into something LESS lethal because then it won't burn itself out but will spread more easily. But that doesn't seem to be happening either.

I can't speak for all people, but I am pretty damn sure viruses mutate constantly, Ebola included. I don't know if it has the capacity to become airborne, again, where do you get this info? Why wouldn't Ebola mutate into something more lethal? The way the desease progresses does not seem to indicate it needs a long-lived host to propagate itself. I don't see how dismissing a real concern (not fear, not hysteria, or whatever platitudes opponents drag out of the woodwork) is helping anything.

Anonymous wrote:When people say they are afraid it will mutate, they mean into something thats airborne. Thats not going to happen.

The real fear should be that it mutates into something LESS lethal because then it won't burn itself out but will spread more easily. But that doesn't seem to be happening either.

That IS the real fear. Eeesh