Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Noble; babygene

“I have made the point you are making about a common-sense or common-man use of the term “airborne” as opposed to its technical meaning”

Jim I have noticed you have FAILED to site your independent medical dictionary that verifies “Airborne” in the medical world has a different meaning than in the Webster Dictionary.

Why is that so difficult for you if as you said,

“that definition has not changed in 60 years”???

On the other hand I have sited the Webster dictionary 3 times on this thread.


66 posted on 10/31/2014 7:50:51 PM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: Enlightened1
Jim I have noticed you have FAILED to site your independent medical dictionary that verifies “Airborne” in the medical world has a different meaning than in the Webster Dictionary

I've worked in infectious diseases epidemiology for forty years. You can believe me, or not believe me, it's totally your choice.

We don't usually do our work by looking up words in dictionaries. If you google "airborne transmission", you can find hundreds of references that substantiate what I'm telling you. If you want to believe otherwise, that's your business.

However, while you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

If Ebola were airborne, there would not be zero cases from the Patrick Sawyer flight from Monrovia to Lagos in July. Of 200 persons exposed to recirculated air for more than 2 hours 30 minutes, there were no cases. In a study of 173 household contacts of 27 Ebola patients, 0/78 with no physical contact acquired Ebola. Of over seventy persons exposed to Thomas Duncan on 9/25/14, who used either no PPE or "standard" precautions (hand washing and gloves) all are now 36 days out with zero cases.

None of these facts are consistent with airborne transmission.

67 posted on 10/31/2014 8:14:49 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1; Jim Noble

I am no expert on health or epidemiology, but this is my meager understanding of the differences, which is not eloquently stated and may not use the terms that it should. As a lay person it makes sense to me.

My understanding of the terms is that larger droplets from sneezing for example, require what is called “droplet” precautions. These particles are large enough that they fall to the ground quickly and don’t stay suspended in the air for long.

Smaller droplets remain suspended in air for longer periods, and may be so small that they can float and enter the ventilation system.

These droplets require what is termed “airborne” precautions, which includes an isolation unit with special air ventilation to avoid it spreading to other rooms through the air, and to people who have had not contact with the patient or entry into the room.

Both particles at some point may be in the air. A link with explanation is noted below:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741245_3


75 posted on 10/31/2014 10:28:01 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson