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.
Thank you for your explanation, FRiend.
In my lifetime the term "airborne" has been used by non-medical/non-scientific friends, family and acquaintances to mean "a disease that may be caught by inhaling the infected exhalations of another person." I think that's a fair definition of the layman's understanding. We both know that by that definition, Ebola is "airborne." I agree that the general public has no concept of the varied degrees and definitions applied in medicine but honestly, that makes the lies by omission that much worse IMO. Instead of announcing the facts, they weasel out of it by saying "technically Ebola is not transmitted by droplet nuclei, the most effective means of airborne transmission." That's going to be a real comfort to those who sicken and die because they inhaled infectious droplets while crammed on a subway or in an amphitheater or wherever, shoulder to shoulder with an infected (and likely unaware) person and clueless of the risk. Patients who picked up three Ebola particles from the elevator button will be relieved to know that the authorities were "technically correct."
MSF and WHO have squandered their credibility with me over the past couple of months for this very reason. MSF has the following heading their Ebola site:
What is EbolaEbola is a virus that can kill up to 90 percent of the people who catch it, causing terror among infected communities. Ebola can be caught from both humans and animals. It is not an air-borne disease. Human to human transmission occurs through close contact with bodily fluids of an Ebola-infected person. Patients need to be treated in isolation by staff wearing protective clothing. Supportive care can help the patient survive longer, and the extra time may just be what the patient’s own immune system needs to fight the virus.
The WHO, in the irony of the age, has a document on their site offering advice on official communications during an outbreak. According to their own document, creating and maintaining trust between officials and the public is critical during outbreaks. They insist that the public be given ALL relevant information to allow individuals to take appropriate precautions which in turn reduces or eliminates mass panic. Read it, it's a short document, and compare it to what we're hearing and reading from officials.
WHO Outbreak communications guidelines
I cannot count the number of times I've read statements from authorities along the lines of "as long as you aren't kissing corpses or mopping up vomit/blood you can't get Ebola." That meme is rapidly failing as we watch doctor after doctor sicken and die. The epidemiologist with no patient contact is interesting, too.
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.
I simply don't know how to respond to this. How many common, everyday events meet the criteria of being less than 3 feet from someone coughing and sneezing? Mass transit, elevators, lines at a store, classrooms, school buses. . .. "Easier to avoid touching surfaces." Perhaps, if the general public knows they need to consider surfaces potentially dangerous. Have you noticed that none of the medical authorities are talking about that problem? It never comes up in offical statements regarding transmission vectors. We have a population intentionally left in the dark regarding both droplet inhalation and surface contamination risks.
Reasonably intelligent people are listening to the authorities pronouncements, watching video reports of physicians and staff clad head to toe in PPE contracting and dying of Ebola, and noticing the conflict. These people may not be scientists or medical personnel but they're smart enough to realize that it doesn't add up.
So much for that trust thing.
Panicking that Ebola is poised to start a pandemic that could wipe out over half of earth's population is *not* appropriate.
I don't know how many people will die from this outbreak but I think it will be a lot, somewhere in the millions. Given what's happened to date I see no serious effort to implement effective epidemiological controls, eg enforced quarantine. The man who took it to Port Harcourt and the doctor who treated him in a hotel room are precisely the kind of people who will spread this far and wide. I certainly don't believe that Americans are protected from it. We're just farther down the infection chain.
If it were truly airborne more people on airplanes would be coming down with it. Entire plane loads.