Ebola Virus

Historically; the flu has been a horrendous killer.

However; we have A LOT of experience developing vaccines for emerging variants and we also have palliative treatments that can limit the mortality rate to "reasonable" levels that will not threaten civilization.

One interesting aspect of Ebola is that it might be sexually transmissible while a patient is asymtomatic. This will result in some interesting fatality patterns with social and political implications.

The E wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Everyone should be scared shitless about Ebola. It has the capability to inflict such a massive fatality rate that civilizational collapse will be realistic risk.

I'm much more concerned about the next big flu variant. Is Ebola scary as shit? Sure. But so far, the flu has a much better track record when it comes to almost wiping out the human species.

There was a Tom Clancy book in which Ebola was turned into a terrorist bioweapon and deployed at several different conventions, causing a large number of fatalities.

America's response was a missile strike at the one who had ordered the attack.

I find myself curious as to how likely this situation might be. I mean, Clancy did (sort of) predict Sep 11th in one of his books (He had a suicidal pilot crash a jumbo into the Senate building).

He also got into trouble for being too accurate with his description of submarine technology in "The Hunt For Red October".

namelessfly wrote:Historically; the flu has been a horrendous killer.

However; we have A LOT of experience developing vaccines for emerging variants and we also have palliative treatments that can limit the mortality rate to "reasonable" levels that will not threaten civilization.

And yet, during the H1N1/09 outbreak in 2009, we had about half a million cases of H1N1 worldwide and around 6000 deaths. All over a period of about 7 or 8 Months, or roughly the same time period this Ebola outbreak has been going on (which, at last count, has managed to kill under a thousand people, with only about 1500 total infected); These numbers lead me to believe that while Ebola is harder to treat, it is also much easier to contain, and its potential as a doomsday scenario for the end of human civilization as we know it is strictly limited.

As such, getting panicky about the CDC getting two (TWO!) people home for treatment is ... premature, IMHO.

(Also, fun fact: This ebola variants' lethality is estimated to be about 64%; it's a killer, sure, but surviving it is far from the miracle that it was claimed to be earlier in the thread)

Since they are being transported to the US, they are going to be transported properly, in full biohazard containment. Your worry shouldnt be from the people inside the multi level protection system, designed to prevent spreading of infection, but the possibility of a normal person, unknowingly carrying it back into the US.

cthia wrote:The latest news is justifying bringing the infected Americans back to the U.S. for treatment, by saying that the virus has been here in the U.S. before. That is NOT true! "Ebola Reston," the weakest strain of Ebola has been here in the states. The current Ebola outbreak is "Ebola Zaire!" It is the most virulent, dangerous, slate wiping strain!!

If I became infected while in Africa, no doubt I'd want to be transported back here to the States where better treatment is available. But to do so, I believe, is incredibly irresponsible. This is NOT a virus to play with. NOT a virus to underestimate. Too much could go wrong — A downed plane, survivors coming in contact with unbeknownst good samaritans. Then we have to trust the Doctors who will also return, that they themselves didn't become infected and that they would be honest if they did. They are being irresponsible to the entire world. It is predicted that someday a worldwide epidemic will hit, are we playing with fire by enabling that opportunity now?

Some are comparing H1N1 to Ebola, as far as danger quotient. That is ridiculous. H1N1 has a 2% mortality rate. There is even chance of one surviving on one's own. Infection of host by Ebola, without outside intervention, is certain death. Period. Any questions? More people have died from H1N1 than from Ebola and because of that, you fear Ebola less?

OF COURSE MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM H1N1! Over 60,000,000 (that's sixty million for the apparently retarded) Americans alone has been infected from H1N1 as of 2011. Again, a mortality rate of 2%.

Do you realize what the state of THE ENTIRE WORLD would be if the number of people infected, with even the weakest strain of Ebola, rose to sixty million? HUMAN EXTINCTION. Do you not see the difference?

Moreover, BSL (Biosafety Level) containment protocols seem to vary with H1N1. Entities are even arguing over which BSL is appropriate as per the activity. Once upon a time BSL-1 was employed! There is NO argument over BSL-4 containment for ANY strain of Ebola. Still not getting it are you? Here's hoping that you never do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 80019.html

In glass number one lives Ebola.
In glass number two lives H1N1.

I won't ask 'From which glass you'd drink?' IF YOU HAD TO, because it is better to remain silent and let people think you are stupid than to speak and remove all doubt.

Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in special for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.

Aside:
Pokermind, thank you very much for that most informative, very important post.

It seems that many have not read THE HOT ZONE. Please do so, or your comments are just watered down babble.

I say again, assimilating the contents of THE HOT ZONE is highly recommended. THE HOT ZONE isn't lying to you via ill-informed, misinformative, disinformative press.

cthia wrote:Some are comparing H1N1 to Ebola, as far as danger quotient. That is ridiculous. H1N1 has a 2% mortality rate. There is even chance of one surviving on one's own. Infection of host by Ebola, without outside intervention, is certain death. Period. Any questions? More people have died from H1N1 than from Ebola and because of that, you fear Ebola less?

In a word? Yes. Because the risk of me catching H1N1, and subsequently being one of the 2% that get killed by it, is far, far larger than the risk of catching Ebola (specifically, this strain) ever will be.

Do you realize what the state of THE ENTIRE WORLD would be if the number of people infected, with even the weakest strain of Ebola, rose to sixty million? HUMAN EXTINCTION. Do you not see the difference?

Of course there's a difference. The difference is that in the time H1N1 travelled around the world, this Ebola outbreak has managed to infect enough people to fill a sports stadium. In other words, this outbreak is less dangerous to those of us not living in the affected regions of the world than H1N1 ever was or will be. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's a highly localized outbreak with very little potential to escalate into a global pandemic.

Panicking about the potential of a disease that works and spreads as slow as Ebola does is stupid. Unless it gets airborne, it's not an extinction level event, and so far, no strain of Ebola has developed the resistance to sunlight that's necessary to do that.

Do note that the reason why this outbreak has even gotten this far is because the people living down there have a (perhaps not unreasonable) distrust of their own government and foreign aid workers. If this outbreak had happened in a country with an adequate medical care system, where the trust between the authorities and the population hasn't broken down, it wouldn't have affected nearly as many people.

It is right to compare h1n1 to ebola, as at the moment you are more likely to die from h1n1, due to the higher levels of infection, and higher infectivity. You can have a disease with a 98% death rate, infect 100,000 people, but unless it can spread, no-one else apart from the originally infected will die. The Spanish flu of 1918 did as much damage to the world as ww1, because it didnt just have a high lethality, but also a staggering infectivity rate. Ebola is lacking the second at the moment, so ebola shouldnt be worried about by the man on the street in first world countries away from where the outbreak is. Ebola is bad yes, but at the moment its not worth worrying about.

cthia wrote:Some are comparing H1N1 to Ebola, as far as danger quotient. That is ridiculous. H1N1 has a 2% mortality rate. There is even chance of one surviving on one's own. Infection of host by Ebola, without outside intervention, is certain death. Period. Any questions? More people have died from H1N1 than from Ebola and because of that, you fear Ebola less?

OF COURSE MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM H1N1! Over 60,000,000 (that's sixty million for the apparently retarded) Americans alone has been infected from H1N1 as of 2011. Again, a mortality rate of 2%.

Do you realize what the state of THE ENTIRE WORLD would be if the number of people infected, with even the weakest strain of Ebola, rose to sixty million? HUMAN EXTINCTION. Do you not see the difference?

Moreover, BSL (Biosafety Level) containment protocols seem to vary with H1N1. Entities are even arguing over which BSL is appropriate as per the activity. Once upon a time BSL-1 was employed! There is NO argument over BSL-4 containment for ANY strain of Ebola. Still not getting it are you? Here's hoping that you never do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 80019.html

In glass number one lives Ebola.
In glass number two lives H1N1.

I won't ask 'From which glass you'd drink?' IF YOU HAD TO, because it is better to remain silent and let people think you are stupid than to speak and remove all doubt.

Erin Brockovich: By the way, we had that water brought in special for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.

Aside:
Pokermind, thank you very much for that most informative, very important post.

It seems that many have not read THE HOT ZONE. Please do so, or your comments are just watered down babble.

I say again, assimilating the contents of THE HOT ZONE is highly recommended. THE HOT ZONE isn't lying to you via ill-informed, misinformative, disinformative press.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:
Some are comparing H1N1 to Ebola, as far as danger quotient. That is ridiculous. H1N1 has a 2% mortality rate. There is even chance of one surviving on one's own. Infection of host by Ebola, without outside intervention, is certain death. Period. Any questions? More people have died from H1N1 than from Ebola and because of that, you fear Ebola less?

In a word? Yes. Because the risk of me catching H1N1, and subsequently being one of the 2% that get killed by it, is far, far larger than the risk of catching Ebola (specifically, this strain) ever will be.

Do you realize what the state of THE ENTIRE WORLD would be if the number of people infected, with even the weakest strain of Ebola, rose to sixty million? HUMAN EXTINCTION. Do you not see the difference?

Of course there's a difference. The difference is that in the time H1N1 travelled around the world, this Ebola outbreak has managed to infect enough people to fill a sports stadium. In other words, this outbreak is less dangerous to those of us not living in the affected regions of the world than H1N1 ever was or will be. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's a highly localized outbreak with very little potential to escalate into a global pandemic.

Panicking about the potential of a disease that works and spreads as slow as Ebola does is stupid. Unless it gets airborne, it's not an extinction level event, and so far, no strain of Ebola has developed the resistance to sunlight that's necessary to do that.

Do note that the reason why this outbreak has even gotten this far is because the people living down there have a (perhaps not unreasonable) distrust of their own government and foreign aid workers. If this outbreak had happened in a country with an adequate medical care system, where the trust between the authorities and the population hasn't broken down, it wouldn't have affected nearly as many people.

Panicking about the potential of a disease that works and spreads as slow as Ebola does is stupid. Unless it gets airborne, it's not an extinction level event, and so far, no strain of Ebola has developed the resistance to sunlight that's necessary to do that.

Panic? Who said anything about panic. My intent of this thread is to INFORM, not to panic. However, I aim NOT to downplay its seriousness.

Slow? You think Ebola spreads slowly? Man, is there any fire at all in your chimney? Ebola, by definition, is not a fast spreader. It is a very fast spreader. That's what slate wiper means! DO NOT LET THE DEGREE TO WHICH BSL-4 HAS SLOWED THIS VIRUS FOOL YOU. Ebola virus is HOT. HOT. HOT. Dammit man, read the book. Have you? Have you??!

Not airborne? IT IS AIRBORNE! It travels by microscopic water droplets by air. Sneezing, coughing, recirculated cabin air aboard planes. Technically, because it uses water as a vehicle to travel by air, does not meet the airborne criteria. Semantics! You won't mind dying on a technicality?

In other words, this outbreak is less dangerous to those of us not living in the affected regions of the world than H1N1 ever was or will be. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's a highly localized outbreak with very little potential to escalate into a global pandemic.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Ebola will be coming to your country. If you live in the U.S., it is already here. We brought it here, via infected patients. No matter HOW it got here. It is here. Contained, yes. Hopefully. Chances of it arriving here unconstrained, is high! It is out of control in Africa.

Localized? Are you truckinserious? You consider seventeen cities affected localised? A single village could be considered localized. NOT seventeen Cities! This outbreak has made it to several of the region's major cities, including Freetown, Sierra Leone; Monrovia, Liberia; and Conakry, Guinea. Major cities have major tourists. This isn't rocket science.

Do note that the reason why this outbreak has even gotten this far is because the people living down there have a (perhaps not unreasonable) distrust of their own government and foreign aid workers. If this outbreak had happened in a country with an adequate medical care system, where the trust between the authorities and the population hasn't broken down, it wouldn't have affected nearly as many people.

Are you sure the people living there has such a distrust of their government? Or is it something you've read?

If the outbreak happened here, It WILL BE MORE SERIOUS because of the denseness of population compared to Africa, because of the more readily available and used modes of transportation, because of the social nature of this country! Do you really not see that?

internet source wrote:These cities have international airports, which opens up the possibility of infected patients traveling abroad. For example, American Patrick Sawyer became infected with Ebola in Liberia and traveled via plane to Lagos, Nigeria, where he died. Health officials are still tracing all the people he came in contact with along the way.

Project that scenario onto LAX, or JFK airports, just to name a couple.

One of the most feared scenarios is of an infected Ebola person traveling by plane via a major airline hub, for reasons that I hope demands no explanation.

Also, The Zaire strain of Ebola virus has a mortality rate of 88 percent, which is higher than either the Sudan strain of Ebola or the Marburg virus.

THE HOT ZONE, RTFM!!!

Aside:
An email from several of my Romanian friends who are medical doctors in Romania. The same concern and sentiment.

Hello #########,
Are Americans really that clueless about Ebola?

Cthia:
No, people are. And America has lots of people.

spacekiwi wrote:It is right to compare h1n1 to ebola, as at the moment you are more likely to die from h1n1, due to the higher levels of infection, and higher infectivity.

Assinine.

Ebola is considered a slate wiper.
H1N1 is not.

Ebola is Biosafety Level Containment 4.
H1N1 is 1-3. And still arguing over it.

H1N1 may demand your A-game.
Ebola ... does not play ... games.

Ebola has a mortality rate reaching as high as 90%.
H1N1 2%.

Ebola does not have a vaccine.
H1N1 does.

H1N1 will sometimes spare the ignorant.
Ebola doesn't give a flying truck.

Dying of H1N1 is a sad thing.
Dying of Ebola is one painful, torturous, hideous SOB!


.

Yes, cthia, we get it, Ebola is dangerous and scary.

But at this time, it's about as dangerous and scary as the average nuclear weapon (Read: Not actually) for most of us here.

There are so many things that have to happen for this disease to break out in the areas where we live that it's quite unlikely. Evacuating US citizens to the US and treating them under carefully controlled conditions is not as big a risk factor as you make it out to be.

In your efforts here, you've gone way past "informing" and veered straight into "panicking". The line about "Ebola is now in the US"? That's hyperbolic bullshit, and you know it.

Yes, having an infectious disease onboard a plane is a nightmare scenario. But guess what, it's a nightmare scenario that comes with plans to deal with it attached.

And yeah, I stand by my points. Compared to diseases that have actually travelled the world, this outbreak is highly localized and moving at glacial pace. Under 2000 confirmed cases and under 1000 confirmed deaths over an 8 Month period does not a global pandemic make. There are way more relevant health risks in our daily lives than that.