Thanks for the H/T. I am bothered by the hair-splicing over the various forms of inhalation transmission. Sure it’s scientifically accurate to say it isn’t transmissible via droplet nuclei as is influenza, but insisting that it isn’t “airborne” is grossly misleading to non-medical and non-scientific people.
The fact is, infected people produce virus particles in their saliva and lung secretions, both of which are expelled from the body into the environment via coughing and sneezing. Anyone within three feet of the infected individual can inhale those secretions and become infected without ever coming in direct physical contact with the viral source. And no one wants to talk about environmental contamination, which I think is even more serious than the droplet vector.
In light of the hair-splicing and diversions I doubt there is any chance of containing this virus before the body count becomes insanely huge.
I must note that the code phrase "bodily fluids" which is so often translated as sharing needles or sexual contact in American medicine and in the mind of the average American (thanks to AIDS), really means ALL bodily fluids in the case of Ebola, from tears and sweat to saliva, blood, semen, vaginal secretions, and by the time someone is symptomatic, feces as well.
Fomites are generally ignored, even though the virus is known to survive on surfaces (even dry) for hours up to indefinitely if the temperature is cold enough. For that reason, though, hotter temperatures more likely lead to perspiration, thinner clothing (and outdoor activities which could lead to open scrapes and cuts) which could lead to viral transfer from common contact surfaces (counters, handles, benches, etc.) and infection.
The whole concept that Ebola is "hard to catch" works best when you are an ocean away.
The people on the ground in Africa have described it as "extremely contagious".
I disagree. I think we need to be very clear on the differences between airborne and droplet transmission. You do not have to be near a sick person, either spatially or temporally, to catch an airborne disease since the particles remain airborne for extended periods of time (up to 4 hours with measles) and can travel on air currents. Droplets, however, fall, and so only people within a short distance of the patient (about a meter or so) risk exposure. Droplets do contaminate surfaces, but it is easier to avoid touching surfaces than it is to avoid breathing aerosols.
People who hear that Ebola could be airborne no doubt run off to the internet and find out that you don't even have to be in the same room with a patient to catch an airborne disease, and thus become unnecessarily alarmed. This is why I take the time to explain that droplet transmission is not the same as aerosol transmission. Concern is appropriate. Recognizing the need to stop this outbreak is appropriate. Panicking that Ebola is poised to start a pandemic that could wipe out over half of earth's population is *not* appropriate.