Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ebola
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 3 of 111 (738627)
10-13-2014 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
10-13-2014 9:44 AM


Well, we've sequenced the strain (i.e. here and here).
There are slight differences in the strain but nothing that remarkable - it's about 97% identical. The transfers in the first world are probably best accounted for by sloppy practice rather than changes in the virus.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 10-13-2014 9:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 19 of 111 (738747)
10-15-2014 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
10-15-2014 12:32 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
Given the high fatality rate, if Ebola were to mutate to the point where the virus could be transferred via air, we would have no hope of stopping the spread of Ebola before half of us (everyone in the world) were dead.
There is no record of any virus, ever, mutating to become capable of airborne transmission where it wasn't before. I realise you were making a rhetorical point here but I think it's worth pointing out how unlikely this scenario is.
It is in fact the combination of relatively easy transmission and high fatality rate that make Ebola so dangerous.
Ebola is not relatively easy to transmit; it transmits comparatively poorly - with a r0 of around 2. This is why all previous Ebola outbreaks burned out pretty rapidly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2014 12:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2014 12:51 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 10-16-2014 5:16 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 35 of 111 (738803)
10-16-2014 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
10-15-2014 10:56 AM


As some said early on, the evidence seems to point toward improperly followed procedures. I was thinking about how one would remove a pair of latex gloves after handling an Ebola patient without contaminating oneself. Once you've pulled the right one off, how do you pull the left one off without touching it with your right hand.
You remove both at once. Cross your arms so that you palms face, then you pinch a region towards the wrist of the glove and pull, both gloves end up together and inside-out. This is standard procedure in biological labs since we routinely end up with gloves contaminated with something.
Double gloving is a back-up although I'd worry that - like wearing two condoms - it might increase the risk of breakages.
Never worked in a hazard suit so I'm not sure how you remove those - however, I'd be confident that there is a known and well understood technique for safe removal. The problem is that the staff involved are not experienced and trained for this kind of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-15-2014 10:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 53 of 111 (738861)
10-16-2014 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Genomicus
10-16-2014 5:16 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
The transmission reports you note are not airborne transmission; they're transmission by droplets of body fluids. That might seem like a pedantic quibble but it really is a fundamentally different thing. Body fluids can be transmitted short distances as droplets - of courser they can - but since Ebola does not cause coughing or sneezing it's relatively unlikely to spread far by this means and this means, in any case, doesn't allow the virus to rapidly circulate in shared airspaces in the manner of the cold and flu viruses spread by aerosols.
As for the ferret experiments; this is mutation of existing mechanisms of airborne transmission for a new host not de novo transition to airborne transmission.
It is, of course, technically possible that Ebola can mutate in this way but it's not any more likely than rhinovirus mutating to cause bleeding from every orifice and subsequent death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 10-16-2014 5:16 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024