Posted on 10/03/2014 3:01:23 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Good chart. All we hear about is Ebola spreading like wild fire in Africa but we have nothing to fear here. Someone is full of BS.
So it would be appropriate to frame your contention in that context.
Says you. I live in DFW. We hunt and BBQ bats at least once a week ‘round here. /s
;p
What if that person just recently vomited and sneezes or coughs? Or they are already bleeding from the gums due to existing periodontal conditions? Or they have nose bleeds? Bite their cheek or tongue?
That scenario is typically referred to as "droplet transmission" and has never been ruled in or out as a mode of transmission of Ebola. To avoid droplet transmission, you should stay at least 3 feet from an infected person (this applies to all diseases that cause sneezing and coughing and are spread by droplets). I prefer to stay further than that from someone who is sneezing--3 or 4 yards is good.
The symptoms of Ebola include vomiting and diarrhea, which are the virus's way of exiting the body and looking for a new host.
SPLAT comes to mind....lol
MICHAELEEN DOUCLEFF is giving us old information - numbers from past Ebola outbreaks. Here's how this strain is different:
ALL past Ebola outbreaks started in the jungle and moved toward cities. This outbreak started in a city.
All other Ebola outbreaks started in ONE place - a small village or community.... This outbreak STARTED in THREE cities simultaneously.
Because African doctors and other Health Care workers in Africa are familiar with Ebola - - health care workers generally didn't get infected in the past. With this strain health care workers are getting infected. Doctors are getting infected, nurses are getting infected.
Last but not least - before this outbreak became political (something the CDC wallows in) several African doctors had commented on how 'healthy' patients appeared almost up until their death. That's different - and telling.
" Longer good 'walking around' health" means statistics from earlier outbreaks are NOT valid. Older strains of Ebola took people down quickly - the sickness stopped them from being able to walk around and infect others. It was self contained for that reason.
No. You have your facts wrong.
patient zero was a 2 year old,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patient-zero-believed-to-be-sole-source-of-ebola-outbreak/
and no, local physicians don’t have experience treating ebola...I worked in Liberia...
Ebola’s early symptoms are similar to other serious diseases such as flu, malaria, typhoid and measles... etc... until the bleeding starts.
Since it`s a bit tough on the skin, what besides Chlorine bleach is effective on the virus? Quats, Iodophors, Phenolics (I know, not intended for skin contact) , alcohol based products?
“Even in the current epidemic in West Africa, where the virus has been out of control...”
That was my take-away sentence on this article of why Ebola is not a big deal.
Ask me again in 3 weeks.
That patient ZERO in a grown man who was looking for free medical care - he came from Africa and he didn't care how many people he infected on the way...
My point was that the doctor's without borders person got ebola and he knew how 'not to get the disease'... a nurse working near him both came down with Ebola too. Both of them were experienced with the disease. I didn't mean to imply that all local doctors had worked with Ebola.
For the binary impaired: A value of 1 to 2 is a major concern. If 1 person can infect two then the following chart suggests just how fast every person on the planet can be infected.
1: 1
2: 2
3: 4
4: 8
5: 16
6: 32
7: 64
8: 128
9: 256
10: 512
11: 1,024
12: 2,048
13: 4,096
14: 8,192
15: 16,384
16: 32,768
17: 65,536
18: 131,072
19: 262,144
20: 524,288
21: 1,048,576
22: 2,097,152
23: 4,194,304
24: 8,388,608
25: 16,777,216
26: 33,554,432
27: 67,108,864
28: 134,217,728
29: 268,435,456
30: 536,870,912
31: 1,073,741,824
32: 2,147,483,648
33: 4,294,967,296
34: 8,589,934,592
That’s it: 34 replications and 8 billion people could have it. There is less than 7 billion people alive now.
This chart and the reality of the epidemic do not match.
Substitute influenza or chickenpox and I think you would see similar spreads of infection, maybe less.
The spread of Ebola is not on par with harder to get diseases like hepatitis.
Most strong disinfectants work but the government doesn’t name any specific brand.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/environmental-infection-control-in-hospitals.html
But the older web site for Africa suggests hand sanitzers or soap and water.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/prevention/index.html
Technical question: If the compounds used are to be used at higher than normal concentrations, as suggested on the CDC link provided, than that suggests the current “best practice” as labeled on the disinfectant compounds is not really the best practice, shouldn`t they now alter the standard recommended concentrations?
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.