Posted on 10/17/2014 2:31:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. is trying to reconsider its approach to Ebola patients after several reports suggest that the fatal virus could be airborne.
Many people in the population are extremely afraid with the fact that they can acquire the deadly disease, while more than 8,000 people have been already affected since its outbreak in Guinea in late 2013. The people are even more afraid today after the news reveal that two Dallas nurse have been infected with the virus after taking care of Thomas Duncan, the first confirmed case of the deadly infection inside the U.S. What is more alarming about the news is that the health care workers were actually wearing the protective equipment during contact with Duncan; however, they still tested positive from the virus.
Although CDC already cleared that the Ebola virus can be transmitted through direct contact with the infected person's body fluids such as sweat, blood and fecal material, there are now claims trying to say that the infection is actually airborne. The news about the infection of the Dallas nurses began to build up issues, such as the real route of transmission of the virus since the health care workers were actually wearing their protective equipment, yet they are still infected.....
(Excerpt) Read more at travelerstoday.com ...
> ... it does not have the capability to become airborne.
This strain of EHF appears to present greater risk than priors (perhaps it needs a distinguishing name, say, ObamaStrain).
The striking difference is the huge number of healthcare workers infected or killed by it in Africa (it’s too early to make any statistical statement about the US, even though so far it’s 2:1 healthcare:public). The African workers were presumably using the same PPE protocols as in prior outbreaks. Something’s different.
Although Frieden is probably not aware of it, even his dangerously useless CDC is advising against “close contact”, which they define as being within 3 feet for an extended period. That’s not direct contact. That’s an air gap.
What is the difference with ObamaStrain? Could be:
- contagious pre-symtomatic
- contagious on unbroken skin
- more air-mobile than currently admitted
I agree that lobbying to get it declared “airborne” is a distraction. The present virus is sufficiently transmissible and lethal without being so classified.
But but but Obola told me it wasn’t airborne!
With the right tune that would actually be a fun dance.
And look at what`s needed for a bio-level4 microbe, http://www.cdc.gov/training/quicklearns/biosafety/
I’m not ready to sign on to airborne yet.
If it were airborne we would have many more people sick than we do now.
It may be, but I want a lot more confirmation of that before I sign on to it.
I have already posted the question, what percentage of the homosexual populace in San Francisco will be infected in 12 - 24 months?
At one point 50% of this population base was infected with the AIDS virus.
I realize this is different. At some point you’re no longer a carrier as I understand it.
Read the definition of Ebola in THE Gold standard in medical dictionaries - Mosby’s Medical Dictionary.
You won’t like what it says about methods of transmission.. HINT: The are not politically correct.
I may not be right in my thinking here, but let my try to explain my reasoning.
When we have communicable diseases, it is not required for them to be spread by coughing or sneezing. The mere exhale of breath carries germs.
What they are talking about here are droplets from coughing or sneezing.
Now perhaps I am being a bit rigid in my definitions here, but I do not see droplet contamination to be what I would conventionally think of as airborne.
And yes, droplets are of course airborne, but I think you’ll be able to see what I mean.
The flu doesn’t require droplet contamination. It only requires breathing the same air. There is a difference.
When they were haggling over whether someone could pass this to another person if they weren’t symptomatic, it was my take that once the infection is in your blood, you could pass it along through bodily fluids right then. That means even before being symptomatic.
It has also always been my thought that saliva, which is what the droplets are, could carry this. So in that, I have bought off on airborne transmission as it relates to flying droplets, but I haven’t bought into the idea you could simple breath in the disease from someone else.
If that’s too convoluted, I apologize.
AIRBORNE?
OMG.
We were lied to!
The only ones to contract ebola in the USA so far, are ones who treated patient zero in end of life situation. That doesn’t suggest airborn
“If Ebola is transmitted through body fluids, then the sneeze droplets most likely will be infected with the virus, hence if you walk into that room, you can breathe in droplets containing the virus and get them on your skin.”
That has never been in dispute, it is not the definition of airborne though
The 101st (Airborne) is soon going to clash with the Liberian Ebola (Airborne) - and I fear the outcome will be very, very grim for our side...
TOTAL BS, NOBODY, I REPEAT, NOBODY IN THE US HAS CONTRACTED EBOLA THAT WASN’T TREATING SOMEBODY WITH FULL BLOWN EBOLA, THIS AIRBORNE STUFF IS TOTAL FREAKING NONSENSE. THE TEXAS FACILITY HAD INFECTED STUFF STACKED TO THE FLOOR AND COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE MEDICAL PROTECTION, EVEN THE CDC NOW ADMITS THAT. EBOLA IS NOT AIRBORNE.
Airborne, no. Arosol yes. There is a difference. Arosol is not as bad as Airborne but certainly worse than just bodily contact. And arosol characteristics fit very well with the current situation. According to info I saw last week on FR associated with the University of Minnesota, Ebola Zaire dies off at a 3% per minute rate in standard air. It dies off faster in dryer air. If one can consider a virus alive.
HF
Thanks Figment, there is no need to go nuts over all this.
Words mean things, and it's important to leave the re-definition of words in the Leftists column.
“there is no need to go nuts over all this.”
No need to go nuts over it, but no need to make it worse by silly actions either. I do believe travel bans should be enacted and a coherent plan enacted in our medical system. The same medical system that is still having problems with antibiotic resistant infections from routine surgeries
Maybe all, maybe none.
The question isn't "how bad it will be in segment 'A' or segment 'B' of the population.
This is not a "lifestyle" dependent disease in that sexual contact is simply not necessary--no matter what someone considers 'sex' to be--to contract it.
To the virus we are all just walking bags of raw material, and it doesn't care about anything--it replicates, without regard to your race, creed, color, nation of origin, politics, sexual preferences, eating habits, or relationship with the family pet.
If there was some simple thing, like avoiding hopping on your left foot, or eating rutabagas, that would guarantee immunity, that would be wonderful, but it just doesn't work that way.
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.