Replies

If it’s not Airborne, then how come so many health care workers around it have become infected. After all they know Ebola the best and are following all the precautions from the CDC and the WHO (World Heath Organization)???
***********************************************************

Look all I did was give you the authoritative link you kept asking for regarding the differences between the terminology.

To me, as a know nothing lay person, the difference in terms, is related to the size of the particles and the amount of time it is in the air, how high does the particle float-and the types of precautions that need to take place.

I wouldn’t presume to say that there is no way it’s not airborne. Likewise, I wouldn’t say the opposite that it’s always airborne just like the flu.

As far as treatment goes, my vote is to take all precautions, including the special ventilation, and I would prefer the centers such as the ones at Emory be used rather than hospitals such as the one in Texas, for example.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don’t understand why you and the Administration are on the WAR PATH to not take basic precaution of a Level 4 Bio safety virus when thousands have already died from it.
********************************************************
I am NOT on that band wagon. I would rather that the visas be revoked, and people from that area be restricted or at least quarantined in Africa for 21 days, followed by quarantine on an Island for 21 days. As noted above, I am in favor of treatment at the centers such as Emory.

I have already read most of the info in the links you provided. It seems to me that there is a lot about Ebola that we don’t know through controlled scientific studies.

For some reason, the professionals have developed a terminology that makes a distinction between direct exposure, droplet exposure, and indirect exposure. All I care about is exposure, but I did take the time to explore what they meant with their terminology so that I could better understand what they might be trying to say.

You asked for a medical explanation to match against Webster’s Dictionary, and I provided that link. I actually thought you were interested in that, since you kept asking about it.

Did you even bother to read it? I think the link I provided is helpful in providing an understanding of the terminology and what the people using it are trying to say.

I thought you had an interest in understanding what people were trying to say, but your reaction shows that you apparently just want to argue. I have no interest in that, and I especially don’t want to argue over semantics.