Replies

I have to note their conclusion: "We conclude that EBOV is shed in a wide variety of bodily fluids during the acute period of illness but that the risk of transmission from fomites in an isolation ward and from convalescent patients is low when currently recommended infection control guidelines for the viral hemorrhagic fevers are followed."

There is only one problem. In the wild, outside the clinical environment people are going to be coming into contact with fomites in an epidemic, without knowing they are in an environment where contamination has taken place.

They will not be following currently recommended infection control guidelines for viral hemorrhagic fevers.

While risks might be low for clinical personnel in a clinical (PPE) environment, the general public in the vicinity of the infected person as they become symptomatic will be at risk.

It is what happens before they get in the door that will determine how widespread the disease will become.

While risks might be low for clinical personnel in a clinical (PPE) environment, the general public in the vicinity of the infected person as they become symptomatic will be at risk.

I believe that is why they perform contact tracing of known cases.

The major problems I see are still cultural. As far as I know, many people in the affected areas do not believe that Ebola is a real disease. Sick people do not go to the hospital because they believe that hospitals are killing people (for their organs, even). Getting people to understand the risks and take precautions is a challenge in that environment.