[Smokin' Joe]

Because most patients have some known and more direct vector, we do not know how little it takes to get the disease. One to ten viral organisms is sufficient to cause infection, but could that be transmitted by a biting fly? a fly which had been on a corpse walking on a fresh scrape or cut?

If so, and violence ensues among the 'healthy', more cases are virtually guaranteed.

Things are not going well from what we can see.

[EternalHope]

I know transmission can be through an open cut and through mucous membranes. Biting flies would qualify.

However, if transmission can be through contaminated food then flies become an even greater problem. Likewise for rodent contamination.

I suspect Ebola can survive in the stomach or vomit would not be so contagious, so I suspect it can be spread through contaminated food. However, even if spread through food is unlikely once in the stomach, Ebola certainly can spread through mucous membranes. Hence it would be capable of infection while in the mouth.

If contaminated food is a risk factor, what about contaminated water?

Contaminated food and/or water would not be common early in the outbreak. Anyone who caught it early on would most likely have had close contact of some kind, so confirmed infection through food or water would be unlikely. But once the number of victims starts to rise the risk of more generalized contamination starts to rise.

I could have missed it of course, but I have seen nothing in print that addresses this issue, including the medical literature. In past pandemics the dead bodies themselves were a source of further infection. We are not far enough in to this for that to be happening, yet, but the same thing could develop with Ebola.