To: seeker41
Sorry Marburg is less dangerous. It only has a 25% fatality rate.
6 posted on
10/05/2014 8:59:55 AM PDT by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: driftdiver
Well, if that is the case I am grateful it’s 25%.
11 posted on
10/05/2014 9:02:11 AM PDT by
seeker41
(take your country back by whatever means necessary & remove the son of a kenyan mooslimb)
To: driftdiver
Case fatality rates have varied greatly, from 25 percent in the initial laboratory-associated outbreak in 1967, to more than 80 percent in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1998-2000, to even higher in the outbreak that began in Angola in late 2004.
12 posted on
10/05/2014 9:03:08 AM PDT by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: driftdiver
> Sorry Marburg is less dangerous. It only has a 25% fatality rate.
Depends on your definition of dangerous.
The fatality rate is lower than Ebola, but the contagion rate is way higher. It only takes 2 viroid particles to make you sick.
63 posted on
10/05/2014 10:36:43 AM PDT by
BuffaloJack
(Bomb ISIS; bomb them again; bomb them again; kill all survivors; take no prisoners.)
To: driftdiver
The 2004 outbreak was a lot nastier than 25%
Links to the Marburg Surveillance Project Threads here
80 posted on
10/05/2014 1:24:37 PM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson