Posted on 01/28/2015 7:20:00 AM PST by TangledUpInBlue
A recent sharp drop in new Ebola infections in West Africa is prompting scientists to wonder whether the virus may be silently immunizing some people at the same time as brutally killing their neighbors.
So-called “asymptomatic” Ebola cases — in which someone is exposed to the virus, develops antibodies, but doesn’t get sick or suffer symptoms — are hotly disputed among scientists, with some saying their existence is little more than a pipe dream.
Yet if, as some studies suggest, such cases do occur in epidemics of the deadly disease, they may be a key factor in ending outbreaks more swiftly by giving secret protection to those lucky enough to be able to bat the infection away.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
#SkyNotFalling
ping
Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.
The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.
So far the false positive rate is 100%.
At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.
*sigh* Such is life, and death...
I would expect that if there were a large enough pool of asymptomatic patients, patiently developing their own immunity, that some small fraction would become asymptomatic carriers.
The “millions to be infected by January 2015” claims were made during the “panic politicians into appropriating billions to fight Ebola” stage of the campaign.
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
It is like saying Y2K was a farce because there was no disaster and ignoring the billions spent rewriting code beforehand to prevent problems.
Not so...
Sept 23, 2014 - "The CDC in Atlanta, meanwhile, released a new model for the spread of the deadly virus. Its worst-case scenario estimates that up to 1.4 million people could be infected by the end of January."
Scouter's projections (posted here on FR on Oct 31) - 212,446 Cases. Initial projections from Sept 22-405,814 Cases
Let's not re-write the history of the panic here at FR by some...who were calling those who said it was not going to go nuts here in the US "crazy"
What I didn't miss was the complete incompetence of the CDC (whose 'guidelines' two nurses were infected with Ebola while using), a lot of pooh-poohing the danger of the pathogen (BSL-4), and no small amount of "move along, nothing to see here".
Some of us were genuinely concerned at the introduction of a novel and lethal pathogen to these shores, and remain so, with good reason.
Certain questions remain unanswered, but projections are based on rates of growth or decline, and given the information at the time seemed valid enough should all factors remain the same.
Those factors did not remain the same, though, and as a result of the media exposure the disease outbreak received and the subsequent response by medical organizations around the world, efforts to reduce, contain, and stop the outbreak continue. Those efforts, including, but not limited to medical personnel, novel treatments, experimental drugs fast-tracked, some things as simple as personal protective equipment that can now be disposed of instead of re-used, just might affect the growth rate of the disease outbreak and render the projections too pessimistic.
In September, none of that was present in the affected area.
Variables changed, and with that the rate of increase.
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, after all.
Most of the discussion here centered around:
1: Keeping the disease out of the US.
2: The possibility of fomite borne infection in the US, especially in urban areas, and the necessary countermeasures to prevent that should that prove to be as severe as the worst-case scenario (that fluids deposited by an infected person remain infectious through skin, mucous membrane direct contact, or transfer from a surface to a mucous membrane by hand gestures.
There was considerable discussion about the means of transmission, which was not well documented except to state that direct contact with infected persons or the bodily fluids (sweat, saliva, vomit, stools (at that point very liquid), blood, semen, vaginal secretions (?), and possibly tears could transmit the disease, but whether mere contact or transferal to a mucous membrane was a gray area. Similarly, the idea of airborne, or droplet transmission was discussed at length. As I repeatedly said, we knew how much exposure would guarantee infection, but we did not know how little exposure would, partly because those infected in the outbreak had been in close contact with patients or the fresh remains thereof.
That a great deal of concern was expressed is normal, people want to be able to undertake measures to improve their safety, and knowing what you are up against is the first step.
Those answers were not always readily available, nor were they necessarily clear-cut. Different research led to different answers, which led to speculation. Is that panic? Or is it an attempt to identify the bounds of the problem (best-case/worst case) and take whatever measures needed to alleviate the problem?
There is a lot of information in that thread. There is a lot of speculation, too, and no small number of media accounts from the Hot Zone in West Africa.
While many said the disease would never get loose here, it did, briefly. Could it have been worse? Sure.
The outcome of Ebola cases in the US has been stellar, with only a 25% mortality (among those infected, that is 10 times the mortality rate of the Spanish Flu, which while much more widespread and contagious killed only 2.5% of those infected in the most lethal wave, but still less than even the most mild Ebola outbreaks in Africa which had a mortality rate between 30 and 90%).
Keep in mind, though, that at any given time, (as far as we know), the number of cases active in the US has never been over 4. When this started, there were 22 BSL-4 hospital beds in the entire country.
That's right, twenty two. It would not have taken much of an outbreak to overwhelm that, so we dodged a bullet, exposed some serious issues with the ability of the healthcare industry in the US to deal with a lethal and novel pathogen, and, hopefully, that is being remediated.
It is my understanding that the number of beds for a similarly lethal pathogen (BSL-4) will reach nearly 500. That's good, because Ebola is only one such disease.
Our best defense against Ebola has been the ocean between us and the outbreaks. Many of us questioned the wisdom of bringing the disease here and even more questioned the wisdom of leaving travel between the affected countries and the US open without restriction.
While that hasn't had much visible effect, people who were exposed have been monitored in order to limit the spread of the pathogen should they exhibit symptoms. That's a far cry from some guy going into the ER (twice) before someone figures out what's going on.
Thanks for the ping!
Some studies have shown that people in areas where outbreaks have never occurred (but where Ebola may be endemic in the animal reservoir) have found a proportion of the population that is seropositive for Ebola.
In simple English, they show signs of having been exposed without getting sick in areas where there have not been human cases.
Analysis of people living in villages where outbreaks have occurred shows that a high number of those people were exposed and did not get sick.
I suspect that some immune system variants prevent some people from getting ill when they are exposed. Not every microorganism makes everyone sick. It would be nice to know the immune system configuration of those people who do not get sick. Maybe something in that could be exploited as a treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.