If you see something like this on a persons arm...RUN LIKE HELL!
Posted on 10/02/2014 8:16:57 AM PDT by Enlightened1
The circle of people who have come into contact with Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan is rapidly expanding, jumping from 18 to 80 early today and then leaping to 100, according to Texas health officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Just found this in a web search, the most detailed information I seen, the consensus of multiple sites say they just don’t know for sure, but this one says why viruses survive longer than bacteria.
For what its worth:
How long can Ebola live outside the body?
Fwmh
Answered Last
Similar to many things with the Ebolaviruses, their ability to survive outside a living organism is not well-known or studied. Most viruses, contrary to popular belief and the characteristics of bacteria, cannot survive long against the raw elements. The usual influenza or cold virus will survive outside living tissue for about three days, but other viruses, namely HIV, can only make due for a couple of minutes. Ebola is certainly a hardy virus and might be able to make it for over a week but no less than three or four days. So the range is anywhere from three to ten days in all likelihood. The reason viruses die so quickly outside (and bacteria do not) is because, when hit with high-energy electromagnetic waves (for instance, sunlight), they break apart with their abyssal level protection. Since viruses do not actually “eat,” they cannot starve, and they do not get too cold (but can get too hot, for their proteins denature; why did you think we get fevers?). In general, very little is known about Ebola. Even how it is transmitted is unknown.
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
If you see something like this on a persons arm...RUN LIKE HELL!
I agree that the morbidity rate of EVD-68, Chikungunya, and Dengue Fever may be significantly higher -— we shall see how this ebola episode plays out -— but the MORTALITY rate is the thing that makes the difference. Sick is sick, but dead . . .
His *wife*. He’s married. And, apparently, a lot of family came by to see him when he came here. (He’s visited the US many times)
Well, I do realize this is serious, but another factor that (in this case) might diminish its spread is that it’s a tropical disease, and North Texas is nowhere near tropical in its climate. It’s much dryer at any time of the year and gets much colder in the winter.
Now if gets started in Florida, I’ll be less optimistic...
While this ebola gift from the nobama administration to the American people is troublesome, I am more worried about dieing from the continued deranged and anti-American policies of the many many LIBs who (unfortunately) exist.
Doctor this a.m. on Laura Ingraham show: Ebola virus can live for 6 days
on a surface...
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/pdfs/04-0981.pdf
“This study suggests that dogs can be infected by Ebola virus and that the putative infection is asymptomatic.”
The paper describes several ebola-related tests done on dogs in Africa and in France. Lots of dogs showed signs of exposure to ebola. Dogs were more likely to show signs of exposure in villages with human ebola outbreaks; dogs in villages with NO ebola in humans were also affected, but at lower rates. It’s possible that some dogs were exposed from wild animals, but no definite link was established in the paper.
The dogs did NOT get sick from ebola.
“Given the frequency of contact between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infection must be considered as a potential risk factor for human infection and virus spread. Human infection could occur through licking, biting, or grooming. Asymptomatically infected dogs could be a potential source of human Ebola outbreaks and of virus spread during human outbreaks, which could explain some epidemiologically unrelated human cases.”
In short, infected dogs MIGHT be a risk to humans, but the paper stops short of saying the risk is certain. No definite cases of dog-to-human transmission were reported. On the other hand, not every human case in the epidemic during 2001-2002 had a known cause. Dogs can’t be ruled out.
A lot of kids are getting the enterovirus.
If given the choice between assuming a low risk of contracting a deadly disease and no risk, of course I'd pick no risk, all else being equal. What's your point? Of course the only way to have zero risk of catching anything is to go Howard Hughes and live in complete isolation from humanity - but not too many people do that.
Yep. Which is far more infectious than ebola.
It won’t take too much to eat up every hospital bed in America, with all of the other viruses on the loose at the moment, our abundance of beds will seem like such a quaint view in a very short time...
That's just nonsense with zero supporting evidence. In fact, quite the contrary. Genetic evidence indicates that the current West African epidemic had a SINGLE animal to human jump - the first case. All other cases have been human to human.
Maybe you're right and we'll all be dead in a few weeks and we should panic and light our hair on fire. However at the moment there is no shortage of hospital capacity anywhere in the US.
Time will tell if and how quickly it spreads. But I don’t believe anything the government says.
Ebola = Ebama = Obola
Source?
Really?
A screw up with the flu is actually more likely to kill you. Between 1976 and 2007 deaths varied wildly, but influenza typically killed 3,000 to 49,000 Americans every year. That's far more people than have died in Africa of ebola, and obviously zero people have died as of yet in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.