I had an extensive on line conversation with Russell Blake concerning his, in my opinion, exaggerated fear of Ebola. My intent was to bring some reason into his terrified blog post. russellblake/why-im-worried-as-hell/#comment-20548 Its difficult to separate the extent of the truth from this mans comments. There is seriousness, but, some degree of tongue in cheek expression. The following is that conversation. A surprise at the end illustrates my point. Sat 18th Oct 2014 at 4:54 pm Ebola is transferred as most people know through bodily fluids, yet droplet size needs to be more than is contained in a sneeze. More like blood or vomit. There is a possibility that the virus could mutate to be communicable in smaller size making it respiratory transferable. Before Dallas, routine health care for isolated patients was adequate for most infections including HIV. Ebola is different and revived precautions are now recognized by health care authorities. Standards have also been updated: 2-3 days with a fever of 104o incubation time was typical. Now the standard quarantine time in days since coming in contact with Ebola patients or products has been increased to 21 days and fever level have been lowered from 104o to 99.5o. This cruise participant didn’t go on the cruise until day 19 and without any measureable fever above 98.6. With Ebola the learning curve can be fatal. Another consideration with Ebola, unlike HIV, the virus can stay viable on surfaces for several days. The above information I received from news reports which I confirmed with the WHO web site. 2 more interesting characteristics of this virus are: -Infected patients given blood transfusions from Ebola survivors who apparently have immunity have a far greater chance of survival. Instead of 50-90% survival rate, it jumped to only 1 death in 9 patients. -There has also been cases of people who have contacted Ebola without symptoms or signs of illness, but when checked had the Ebola antibodies in their blood. (since they had no symptoms they were not contagious) Viruses are very tricky and can change or mutate. So the safety rules are good until they prove to no longer be true. There is also a lot on line about why community or country isolation does not always work depending on the country involve and I am sure that others are capable of researching that provided that their fear and prejudice will allow them to. Reply Russell Blake – Sat 18th Oct 2014 at 5:21 pm I hadn’t heard that droplet size needs to be larger than a sneeze. Where can I confirm that information? Or is that one of the “we believe” statements floating around the web which are true until proven not to be? I’m genuinely curious. Because if they’ve confirmed that transmission can’t happen with droplets from a sneeze, that would be good to know. And if they haven’t confirmed it, that would also be good information. Reply Tiffiny Tennyson – Sat 18th Oct 2014 at 7:38 pm For Consideration: 1) What constitutes an infectious dose and can the protein molecule encasing the virus attach its self to the intact nasal membrane in an aerosol sneeze dose. 2)At what stage of the disease is the sneeze dose the most virulent. (probably larger drops the sicker the patient) 3)Decades of study have not found the virus to be aerosol airborne. (swabbing of vent systems?) The following information from Stanford and World Health Org. https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/transmission.html RESPIRATORY: Amongst humans, Ebola is transmitted by contact with infected bodily fluids and /or tissues (2, 3). There is evidence of a possible respiratory route of transmission of Ebola in NONHUMAN primates (3). Even if Ebola is transmitted via the respiratory route to nonhuman primates, humans may be resistant to the airborne/aerosol transmission of Ebola (may not have the right receptors). who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/ NOT AN AIRBORNE VIRUS: Ebola virus disease is not an airborne infection. Airborne spread among humans implies inhalation of an infectious dose of virus from a suspended cloud of small dried droplets. This mode of transmission has not been observed during extensive studies of the Ebola virus over several decades. Common sense and observation tell us that spread of the virus via coughing or sneezing is rare, if it happens at all. Epidemiological data emerging from the outbreak ARE NOT CONSISTANT with the pattern of spread seen with airborne viruses, like those that cause measles and chickenpox, or the airborne bacterium that causes tuberculosis. Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person. This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person. WHO is not aware of any studies that actually document this mode of transmission. On the contrary, good quality studies from previous Ebola outbreaks show that all cases were infected by direct close contact with symptomatic patients. No evidence that viral diseases change their mode of transmission Moreover, scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission. For example, the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which has caused sporadic human cases since 1997, is now endemic in chickens and ducks in large parts of Asia. That virus has probably circulated through many billions of birds for at least two decades. Its mode of transmission remains basically unchanged. Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence. This kind of speculation is unfounded but understandable as health officials race to catch up with this fast-moving and rapidly evolving outbreak. THE FOLLOW ARE MY WORDS: Some capitalizations are mine to emphasize a point. Addresses are include so that you may read full articles. Now WHO claims that mutation of viruses hasn’t been observed in various diseases and hopefully they are correct. I do suspect that you have no fear from walking around tourist as long as you don’t have body fluid contact with them. (by the way-I’m trying to calm you, not scare you, but Ebola has shown up in human sperm for, I think, 60-90 days post recovery) Also I commented that ‘viruses are tricky and can mutate’, but I am not qualified to repeat that statement in view of the opinion and study by epidemiologists at WHO. Hopefully you can limit the terror of your imagination to your exciting novels. Tiffiny Reply Russell Blake – Sat 18th Oct 2014 at 7:50 pm I’m not speculating that transmission can occur as it does with the flu. I specifically limit my observation to the idea that if someone with adequate serum levels of the virus sneezes on me, or on some hard surface I later touch, there is risk of transmission. I’m not worried about inhaling Ebola and getting it. I’m worried about a tourist sneezing on me at Starbucks, or on the counter or the cinnamon shaker or whatnot, and then I’m touching it. Or I’m settling into my seat on my flight, and unbeknownst to me, the prior passenger was sneezing up a storm on my armrest, etc. I direct you to the second link you posted, specifically: Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person. This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person. Based on this, I’m getting that it’s not airborne in the sense that you can inhale it and get it, but it can be propelled through the air on droplets, which could hit you, or something you touch, and then there is risk – but nobody’s all that sure how much risk. The literature concedes that risk, then goes on to say it’s got to be low. But then again, I was just told by the CDC and the President that the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. was “extremely low,” so does that mean that risk (which we know in that case meant 25%), was higher than mere low, which could then be >25%? That’s the problem with imprecise language, if one wishes to qualify lying as being imprecise, which I suppose it can be. I will, however, avoid all human sperm, including my own to the extent possible, until further notice. Reply tiffiny tennyson – Sun 19th Oct 2014 at 12:40 pm Yes, it is good to avoid handling your own sperm since you certainly don’t want to acquire Ebola from yourself. ************************************************************************************** Upon A Pale Horse is a Bio-Thriller authored by Blake.
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:05:31 +0000