[Politically Correct]

I need to sound this out: If one's recovery is dependent on the compatible plasma from a survivor, then it's imperative that we have multiple survivors to ensure a defense against Ebola for all. Can that be right? Is that a reasonable assumption?

No. The plasma bit is much like a desperate last ditch attempt to do something or anything. The antibodies floating around in plasma after recovery although high compared to a few years from now, are insignificant to someone in the throws of the disease.

Normally, antibodies are circulating in sufficient numbers to kill off a small number of virons that you catch from another diseased person or the environment. Not the trillions of virons that are circulating when you are really sick.

[JoanVarga]

But that’s just it: how are these folks recovering with 100% (so far) recovery rates? They catch it early and treat with plasma donations. They even do this in West Africa.

I get that by the time you’re dissolving it’s too late.

Duncan wasn’t given plasma because there was no compatible source, AND he was pretty far gone. Does the point remain that having antibodies in great supply and early on makes for the most successful rate of survival?

[YogicCowboy]

“... to someone in the throws of the disease.”

It is “throes”; I suppose one could argue it is “throw-ups” if one wanted to dissemble.