I have been posting extensively on the fact that Ebola is not transmissible by aerosols, and I have even commented on that website before. Please look at my posting history.
That article claims to quote the USAMRIID BlueBook, but those quotes that are supposedly in the BlueBook are not actually there. I would post exactly what the BlueBook (7th edition, Sept 2011) says about transmissibility, but it is impossible to copy/paste from it. The passage I would quote starts at the sentence that begins at the bottom of page 106 and continues to the end of the paragraph on top of page 107. It says that airborne transmission is frequently considered possible, but occurs rarely if at all. It mentions that the Reston virus “apparently” spread by the respiratory route—but does not include the details that indicate that the Reston facility where those monkeys were kept was quite dirty, and there was plenty of opportunity for virus to travel on clothing, shoes, cages, etc., to infect monkeys in a different room.
That pissonroses blog also claims that Ebola infects cells of the respiratory tract. It does not. It infects connective tissue cells. It gets into the blood because it infects cells that line blood vessels and certain blood cells. That blog also describes respiratory viruses, substituting in the word “Ebola” for an actual respiratory virus name. The blog also cites studies where Ebola was artificially aerosolized—which show that an Ebola infection can occur if one breathes in virus particles, but it does not show that animals naturally aerosolize virus (they don’t). The environment in which those aerosol studies are conducted is very unnatural—the animal is confined in a box, immobile, while an aerosol is mechanically generated and blown into its face. I can’t think of any natural situation that is equivalent.
Ebola does not typically cause respiratory symptoms, but if something makes an Ebola patient sneeze, and the mucous contains blood, the large particles could contain virus. This is what is known as “droplet” transmission, and is a form of direct transmission—the three foot distance you are recommended to put between yourself and an Ebola patient is to keep you out of range of droplets the patient might generate.
Anyway, I didn’t go over every item, but the bottom line is that that blog is not very accurate. I notice that whoever posted that blog is trying to sell stuff—and that is the main purpose of the sensational claims, to scare people into buying the stuff the blogger is selling (or to just donate to the blogger).
I hope this helps.
Maybe you should have watched the Congressional hearings with the CDC.
Does the virus viability window increase in a colder and dryer environment? Will a Ebola viron remain viable in suspended droplet form or on environmental surfaces for longer periods of time in a cold environment?
Because if true, then even if it doesn`t significantly increase airborne exposure risk, if it increases surface survivability, it`s still a game changer as far as contact exposure.
That's a highly likely situation when Flu season starts.
Not in nature, but in the subway/Metro I think you might find something close.