BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:30 AM

Yes, an Ebola infected goign on holiday is a worry but possibly more worrying is the fact the infection happened in the first place when you consider the precautions it jumped:

Health authorities on Monday said that health professionals treating Ebola patients in Spain always followed protocols outlined by the World Health Organisation. The nurse would have entered García Viejo's room just twice, said Alemany, and would have been wearing protective equipment on both occasions. "We don't know yet what failed," said Alemany. "We're investigating the mechanism of infection."

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 09:26 AM

The two suspect patients reported on npr turned out negative.

The cases in Spain regarding a nurse and partner are now reported in the media. My apologies for reporting it 5 days prior to confirmation.


The very bad no good dangerous conspiracy theory from FOX is that we have run out of Ebola vaccine and blaming Obama.

There still is not a vaccine and never has been folks.

A vaccine may be ready next year. Anti virals and anti replicating drugs for viri are being tried.

Now that Saudi Arabia has its hands on Ebola is not a comforting thought.


There is an obscure report that a Ugandan .radiographer (X-Ray technician) in Uganda died Sept 28th 2014 from the Marburg virus which is a hemorrhagic fever.At this time it is only possible that this is true. If so, it is a totally different difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 09:39 AM

Marburg is closely related to Ebola.
4 hospitalised, 28 possible secondaries under observation, first couple came up clear, for the moment. They'll only really know in three weeks.
The good news for her is that she was exposed 25 Sep, left 26 Sep, reported symptoms 28 Sep, still with us 12 days later so possibly responding, secondaries should know either way in 12 more days. We can therefore add rumour control to the charges, the rest of the world had the right to know. They can trace her family circle, but what about the rest.
The failure seems to be in disrobing, the hospital staff are riled to the max because they've had no specific training, the bloody quacks seem to think it's like anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 10:59 AM

Yes, I also read about Marburg in Uganda. And apparently the Ebola in Nigeria, which stayed contained, was not the same Ebola as is breaking out in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.

Anybody heard a great report on NPR about what the Firestone rubber plantation in Liberia did about the epidemic when it started up in their compound?

Some EXCELLENT epidemiology was done there. Blicky.

As an aside, if the quacks are bloody, don't touch them.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:14 PM

<>The very bad no good dangerous conspiracy theory from FOX is that we have run out of Ebola vaccine and blaming Obama.

What the fuck? Even for Faux News, that's preposterous bullshit. But at least 25% of the U.S. populace - who believe the horseshit Fox/Murdoch put out- is going to accept.

Oh, ye nation of morons.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:48 PM

with something so deadly i think it is insane to say it can't be spread through air or whatever...stuff on air anyway gets onto surfaces...take serious extreme precautions if you want to control it. if you don't care, if you would rather philosophize than act, then ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:56 PM

And since the virus incubates, screening without quarantining the healthy is useless, so screening is useless.

I've been saying all along, quarantine quarantine quarantine.

Apparently the nurse in Madrid *did* use all precautions and caught it anyway. That is very unusual.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

with something so deadly i think it is insane to say it can't be spread through air

No, Mary its fucking FACT that it isn't spread atmospherically. Get a fucking grip, will ya?

We don't need any more bullshit on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 10:16 PM

Now, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:00 PM

cnn is running this on line only

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:03 PM

It is not airborne except for the body fluid that is flung int the air and lands right in your eyes and mouth. A sneeze can in this rare scenario can be equated with vomiting in your eyes.

Is that airborne?
NO not in the the way flu can be airborne and even survive dry for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:03 AM

It is NOT fact it cannot be spread by aerosol: it mutates, and its brethren can (Reston Virus, which may be on the loose in Virginia: it's got very low pathogenicity in humans and may even be the basis for an innoculation). Experimental research HAS shown airborn transmission from pigs to and between primates can happen, see below. As at this point, it has not jumped the air gap, but that does not mean to say it cannot, will not, or is not doing so now.

The Spanish nurse affirms she took every precaution against the known normal pathology. As she was infected none the less, then the pathology has changed, and the pressure is on to discover why. In the mean time, those involved must be ultra cautious: there is, for example, an obvious discrepancy between the air control in the Royal Free setup and the "let's swan around in the open" in Madrid. Watching them, they only double-glove, for example, which is one layer too few: one for the patient, one for the environment, and one for you.

See:
Johnson E, Jaax N, White J, Jahrling P (Aug 1995). "Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus". International journal of experimental pathology 76 (4): 227–236. ISSN 0959-9673. PMC 1997182. PMID 7547435.
Weingartl HM, Embury-Hyatt C, Nfon C, Leung A, Smith G, Kobinger G (2012). "Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates". Sci Rep 2: 811. doi:10.1038/srep00811. PMC 3498927. PMID 23155478.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:08 AM

I see you've quite gone over to the hysterics!

As at this point, it has not jumped the air gap, but that does not mean to say it cannot, will not, or is not doing so now.

Nor does it mean that it can, will, or is doing so right now.

The Spanish nurse affirms she took every precaution against the known normal pathology. As she was infected none the less, then the pathology has changed,

Right, she "afffirms". Uh hunh. Or she screwed up & the pathology hasn't changed.

Good thing we're neither pigs or non-human primates, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:33 AM

They simply don't know how she got infected. Like the situation in Dallas, it's the response that is the greatest worry:

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/spanish-ebola-nurse-symptoms-quarantine]Nurse reported symptoms three times[/url]

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:39 AM

Sorry, I'll try that again:

Nurse reported symptoms three times

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:26 AM

And unless you stay careful after getting out of the room - you can get infected taking off your quarantine outfit and then wiping sweat out of your face, without it having gone airborne, the virus that is, not your face. Or your quarantine suit.

And great, she got tylenol when she tried to tell them she had Ebola. Sounds like Texas.

But let's not insult each other, OK? Even if one of us says something dumb, let's not call then a fucking idiot, but argue with their premise? Can we do that in this thread, at least? Thank you in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:39 PM

The Liberian in Texas has died. At least just coming to the States is no longer a cure.

Spain is about to kill the nurse's dog in case it's a vector. That does horribly make some kind of sense...

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:33 PM

coming to the States is no longer a cure

Never was, never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:47 PM

Boneheaded English racists

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:20 PM

Not because it's a vector, but simply because it's less cruel than cleaning it of the ebola virus it's undoubtedly carrying. Constant deluging in chlorine will gas it, leave its coat burning, and skin irritated beyond care. =

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:49 PM

If it's carrying the virus then it IS a vector... that is a great reason to kill it, which they have done. But it is quite doubtable that it is carrying it at all - nonetheless, if it were me, I would not take the chance. We know Ebola incubates in mammals. Mammals in close contact with victims are scary and dangerous, and you know it, to paraphrase K.

Now a cop in Dallas has "symptoms consistent with Ebola" which means what, they have a fever? It's one of the cops who went to deal with the apartment, although what form dealing with an apartment takes is unclear. I'd be terrified if it were me, and I had a fever, after being in close contact with a victim or their juices.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:00 PM

New numbers:

Total Cases: 8033 = +643 in 3 weeks or more than 200/week now
Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 4461
Total Deaths: 3865...for West Africa. Add 2 confirmed and 1 dead for the rest of the world.

Recap of old numbers:

Beg of October:

Total Case Count: 7470 + 20 in Nigeria, 2 in Senagal and 1 in US=7493
Total Deaths: 3431 + 8 + 0 + 0 = 3439
Laboratory Confirmed Cases: 4087 + 19 + 2 + 1 = 4099

Reminder of end of September case count:
Total Case Count: 6263
Total Deaths: 2917
Laboratory Confirmed Cases: 3487

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:00 PM

"symptoms consistent with Ebola"

Yup. Which symptoms, in the initial stages, are consistent with what - several thousands of diseases?

Wasn't there once a rock group called Question Mark and the Hysterians? Time for tham to make a comeback record.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:31 PM

What I meant was that all the people repatriated to the US already with Ebola had survived.

Question Mark and the Hysterians? I love it!

And over 200/week is less than 100/day!

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:27 PM

It's time to get you clued up, just in case.
The space occupied by someone with a virus gets contaminated by the virus. Any virus. Including Ebola. Most viruses break down outside of a live body, but Ebola survives in a dead body, so it probably survives on surfaces too. Sweat, skin cells, you name it. I'm a tad worried about water supply, even: urine's infectuous too.
Given that, then it's not what's in the dog, but what's on the dog, which was a primary cause of concern. Don't minimise this one until we know what kills it: many bugs don't like the cold, SARS didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:10 PM

so it probably survives on surfaces too

Probably?

Don't minimise this one

Lets us not maximize it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:55 PM

The Ebola virus has been demonstrated to survive outside a host for up to 50 days. But that is at fairly low temperatures. Under 10 days is normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:40 PM

Please define "host" for the above (9:55 PM) post. Richard, do you mean a person, or an individual cell that has been shed by a person or other mammal, or a cell in a petri dish, since you're saying "demonstrated?"

Please define "survive" for the above post. Do you mean the coating remains recognizable and continues to coat some dna that stays recognizable, or do you mean the virus remains actually capable of infecting a new host, which will now be defined as either an individual cell in a petri dish, since we're talking research, or an individual (human, let's say)?

Because while all the research is very important for future knowledge, right now the crux is Can this strain of the virus actually infect another person.

And so far the epidemiology suggests no, not unless there is contact with a lot of virus in a body of bodily fluid that is still fluid.

Like a pool of blood or a pond of sweat, but probably not even a jizz of semen. There is no evidence at all in the epidemiology of this outbreak to suggest you can get it from a place a droplet of sweat once fell or, in point of fact, from just sex. This is not considered a sexually transmitted disease. If you have sex with someone sick with fever they will sweat, and you'd get it from their sweat.

The people being infected have all cared for the dead or dying and been in direct physical contact with their blood or sweat. The Texas guy had carried a dying pregnant 19-year-old neighbor to a taxi after she was already bleeding out. The nurse had not been trained on how to get back *out* of a *contaminated* hazmat suit safely, so she also is incredibly likely to have had direct contact with blood or sweat.

And we do know that the virus lives in but does not sicken many other mammals, but I don't know if we know that dogs are one of them. There is no evidence at all, nor any indication at all, that there is a danger from Ebola from the outside of other mammals, since the virus doesn't infect the outside of mammals. Unless, I guess, you drench it in blood or sweat, and even then, once that dries, the animal is no longer a danger.

The blood/sweat is the danger, not everywhere it has been.

The reason dead ebola victims are so infectious is that the virus has turned their entire insides (pretty much everything but bone and skin) to one big bodily fluid that, contained within the skin, stays fluid. The phrase Ebola bomb is descriptive and was used in The Hot Zone.

And since everybody checks people for fever by feeling their foreheads, one of the first things humans do is catch the virus from the people they are concerned about, who *are* feverish and likely to be sweating since that is part of the human fever response to infection.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:47 AM

It's not where I first saw it, but it's close enough - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:50 AM

"The Ebola virus can survive for several days outside the body, including on the skin of an infected person,"

From here. Follow your own link.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ebola-virus/pages/ebola-virus.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 06:51 AM

Whatever you think of Christians, they provide much of the health care in central Africa.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/missionary_doctors_treating_ebola_in_africa_why_people

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:42 AM

My link is no good.
Slate magazine a few days ago.
"Like it or not, though, we are deeply reliant on missionary doctors and nurses. The 2008 ARHAP report found that in some sub-Saharan African countries 30 percent of health care facilities are run by religious entities. That system is crumbling due to declining funding, possibly motivated in part by growing Western suspicion of missionary medicine. We have a choice: Swallow our objections and support these facilities, spend vast sums of money to build up Africa's secular health care capacity immediately, or watch the continent drown in Ebola, HIV, and countless other disease outbreaks.
As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we're finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work."

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:43 AM

I may be wrong on the surface survival - it's being quoted as hours on a dry surface, days on a wet one. In a body, it survives 2-3 days.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:20 AM

So far, the real success story has been the thoroughly secular intervention of the Nigerian state. Contact tracing isn't something you could expect a Christian church organization to be much good at.

Not to knock them for what they are doing, of course. But it's likely to become ever less relevant to the progress of the epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:39 AM

Here's some exerpts from your article, Keith. Seems them thar missionaries are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

... When I write about medical issues, I usually spend hours scouring PubMed, a research publications database from the National Institutes of Health, for data to support my story. You can't do that with missionary work, because few organizations produce the kind of rigorous, peer-reviewed data that is required in the age of evidence-based medicine...

There are serious questions about the quality of care provided by religious organizations in Africa. A 2008 report by the African Religious Heath Assets Programme concluded that faith-based facilities were "often severely understaffed and many health workers were under-qualified." Drug shortages and the inability to transport patients who needed more intensive care also hampered the system.

There is also a troubling lack of oversight. Large religious health care facilities tend to be consistent in their care, but the hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller clinics in Africa are a mystery. We don't know whether missionary doctors are following international standards of care. (I've heard murmurs among career international health specialists that missionaries may be less likely to wear appropriate protective equipment, which is especially troubling in the context of the Ebola outbreak.)

There are extremely weak medical malpractice laws (and even weaker court systems to enforce them) in much of sub-Saharan Africa, so we have no sense whatsoever of how many mistakes missionary doctors are making. We don't know how many missionaries are helping to train new doctors and nurses in the countries where they work—the current emphasis of international health delivery.

In his Lancet article, Lowenberg quotes a missionary who insists he does not proselytize, even though he tells his patients, "I'm treating you because of what God has given me and his love for me." That statement—which strikes me as obvious proselytizing— suggests that some missionaries are incapable of separating their religious work from their medical work. Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert.
... When I write about medical issues, I usually spend hours scouring PubMed, a research publications database from the National Institutes of Health, for data to support my story. You can't do that with missionary work, because few organizations produce the kind of rigorous, peer-reviewed data that is required in the age of evidence-based medicine...

There are serious questions about the quality of care provided by religious organizations in Africa. A 2008 report by the African Religious Heath Assets Programme concluded that faith-based facilities were "often severely understaffed and many health workers were under-qualified." Drug shortages and the inability to transport patients who needed more intensive care also hampered the system.

There is also a troubling lack of oversight. Large religious health care facilities tend to be consistent in their care, but the hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller clinics in Africa are a mystery. We don't know whether missionary doctors are following international standards of care. (I've heard murmurs among career international health specialists that missionaries may be less likely to wear appropriate protective equipment, which is especially troubling in the context of the Ebola outbreak.)

There are extremely weak medical malpractice laws (and even weaker court systems to enforce them) in much of sub-Saharan Africa, so we have no sense whatsoever of how many mistakes missionary doctors are making. We don't know how many missionaries are helping to train new doctors and nurses in the countries where they work—the current emphasis of international health delivery.

In his Lancet article, Lowenberg quotes a missionary who insists he does not proselytize, even though he tells his patients, "I'm treating you because of what God has given me and his love for me." That statement—which strikes me as obvious proselytizing— suggests that some missionaries are incapable of separating their religious work from their medical work. Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert.
... When I write about medical issues, I usually spend hours scouring PubMed, a research publications database from the National Institutes of Health, for data to support my story. You can't do that with missionary work, because few organizations produce the kind of rigorous, peer-reviewed data that is required in the age of evidence-based medicine...

There are serious questions about the quality of care provided by religious organizations in Africa. A 2008 report by the African Religious Heath Assets Programme concluded that faith-based facilities were "often severely understaffed and many health workers were under-qualified." Drug shortages and the inability to transport patients who needed more intensive care also hampered the system.

There is also a troubling lack of oversight. Large religious health care facilities tend to be consistent in their care, but the hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller clinics in Africa are a mystery. We don't know whether missionary doctors are following international standards of care. (I've heard murmurs among career international health specialists that missionaries may be less likely to wear appropriate protective equipment, which is especially troubling in the context of the Ebola outbreak.)

There are extremely weak medical malpractice laws (and even weaker court systems to enforce them) in much of sub-Saharan Africa, so we have no sense whatsoever of how many mistakes missionary doctors are making. We don't know how many missionaries are helping to train new doctors and nurses in the countries where they work—the current emphasis of international health delivery.

In his Lancet article, Lowenberg quotes a missionary who insists he does not proselytize, even though he tells his patients, "I'm treating you because of what God has given me and his love for me." That statement—which strikes me as obvious proselytizing— suggests that some missionaries are incapable of separating their religious work from their medical work. Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:00 PM

Early symptoms are fever, muscle pain and weakness, and sore throat.

These symptoms apply to several infections. Norwalk type viruses are common, and have similar symptoms; spread commonly by hand contact or contact with contaminated surfaces.
Enterovirus D-68 is current in parts of U. S. and Canada; muscle weakness a symptom. A big problem in Alberta and my city of Calgary at the moment.

Health care workers are faced with identification of the patient's disease, and of course the more common ones are the first guess- isolation and special protective measures cannot be extended to each patient, so blaming the health care worker in Texas for the late treatment for Ebola is wrong- unless the history of the movements of the patient and his African contacts was available at the first contact with the patient.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:36 PM

BBC report 5 Oct. 2015, "Ebola biggest challenge since AIDS." Includes maps of disease density.
The disease is obtained through close contact with animals- Fruit bats, forest antelope (both items of food) and chimpanzees.
It an be spread by indirect contact, through contaminated environments (How long surfaces, etc., are affected depends on several factors.

A patient who recovers may still be infectious up to seven weeks after recovery, since their blood and secretions still contain the virus.

Cases, although concentrated in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia, extend across Africa west to east, from Senegal to Uganda, including South Sudan, Gabon, Conge, DR Congo, Uganda.
Hopefully, the disease has been contained in Senegal and Nigeria.
Liberia has been most affected, with 2200 deaths up to Oct. 5.
Close contact with dead relatives is a cultural trait in many of the societies, and is a cause of transmission of the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:47 PM

Lumping all the Christian efforts in the same pot is a mistake.
My ophthalmologist is active part of the year with the Seventh Day Adventists, treating eye disease in Africa. A number of doctors are involved in treatments offered around the world by the SDA, and proselytization is not part of their treatments.

The old type of bible-banging missionary, those still in existence, should be consigned to the pot, a source of protein.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:06 PM

A 2008 report by the African Religious Heath Assets Programme concluded that faith-based facilities were "often severely understaffed and many health workers were under-qualified." Drug shortages and the inability to transport patients who needed more intensive care also hampered the system.

That's an unreasonable complaint, unless local standards for secular-provided care are significantly better. In much of rural West Africa I very much doubt there is a better alternative on offer. If they're willing to do what they can with poor resources in a desperate situation, they deserve credit, not blame, for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:31 PM

Thanks for the clarifications and data.

The people who clean the planes that come in to JFK are striking, and I don't blame them. If my job were to clean up barf, right now I'd be terrified.

I think if we eliminate the close contact with the bodies of fluid, the huge bulk of tranmission would stop, and we could deal with the few that could maybe still get it from once-wet surfaces. That were wet very recently. And had a big viral load in them. The bodies of infected fluid, I meant. A few cases here and there would be dealable-with.

And if everybody stopped repatriating the ill, we'd stop sending more of these few cases here or there.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:38 PM

Greg, it was a balanced article, and you just extracted one side of it.
I gave the conclusion.
Jack, yes they will become less relevant as the big agencies and militaries move in.
When they all go home the Christians will still be there.
The disease was first identified in a dying nun who contracted it caring for the poor and sick by the river Ebola.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:45 PM

The disease was "first identified" by someone WHITE in a nun maybe. You can be sure the people who had it, and who'd had had it for possibly millennia, had a name for it already.

I think you meant, the disease first came to the attention of Western medicine, or Europeans, in that dying nun.

Also I've opened a thread on the question of the religion being in the way, as I believe that may be a side issue? Can we temporarily move discussion of that aspect over there? I ask this as a courtesy, please. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:45 PM

The disease is mutating; the virus may not have had severe effects a hundred years or more in the past or was nor transmissible from animal hosts.
We cannot predict the effects in the future; like the "Spanish Flu," it may run its course in a few years or on the other hand, become a scourge for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:51 PM

Nice infographic here in WashPo.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:50 PM

There are over 11 million tweets on ebola so far.



1 Treatment and emerging cures.

2 Where is Ebola in humans and animals today?

3 Best and worst case scenarios

4 Social and Economic effects caused by Ebola

5. Conspiracy theories.


1: Mr. Duncan was given an experimental drug but the results are unclear since treatment began so late.

2: It is my concern that Ebola will never be reported in the country directly bordering Liberia to the South. Why? Because that is where 75% of all the chocolate in the world is grown and harvested. Shh By some miracle the Ivory Coast has immunity?!?

4: THIS WEEK HAVE YOU HAVE SEEN THE LARGEST DROP IN THE STOCK MARKET THIS YEAR?

5: Dr. Rush Limbaugh is reporting that the Muslim President Barak Ebola is insisting to allow all the Ebola victims into the USA as a Liberal revenge against historic slavery. Democrats and Liberals are to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:55 PM

I'm from Ivory Coast and the last time I looked, south of Liberia is the Atlantic Ocean (well, Bay of Biscay). We are east of Liberia, and Ivorians have not yet reported any cases, which I find unbelievable, personally, but I also have read that they aren't going to Liberia to do business nowadays which is one of the reasons Liberia is suffering economically as fallout from the epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 09:22 PM

A group of chimpanzees in Ivory Coast has Ebola. One Swiss scientist who worked with their bodies contracted Ebola. Luckily, she recovered.

Ivory Coast has closed its borders with Guinea and Liberia. See Stanford University article, Ebola Cote D'Ivoire Outbreaks.

Just a matter of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:01 PM

Good! Last I heard, the borders were still open.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 03:27 AM

'south of Liberia is the Atlantic Ocean (well, Bay of Biscay)'



Bay of Biscay? Really? Maybe not start lecturing pother people on matter relating geography yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody else watching Ebola break out?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:14 AM

Stanford University
In 1976, Ebola (named after the Ebola River in Zaire) first emerged in Sudan and Zaire. The first outbreak of Ebola (Ebola-Sudan) infected over 284 people, with a mortality rate of 53%. A few months later, the second Ebola virus emerged from Yambuku, Zaire, Ebola-Zaire (EBOZ). EBOZ, with the highest mortality rate of any of the Ebola viruses (88%), infected 318 people. Despite the tremendous effort of experienced and dedicated researchers, Ebola's natural reservoir was never identified. The third strain of Ebola, Ebola Reston (EBOR), was first identified in 1989 when infected monkeys were imported into Reston, Virginia, from Mindanao in the Philippines. Fortunately, the few people who were infected with EBOR (seroconverted) never developed Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF). The last known strain of Ebola, Ebola Cote d'Ivoire (EBO-CI) was discovered in 1994 when a female ethologist performing a necropsy on a dead chimpanzee from the Tai Forest, Cote d'Ivoire, accidentally infected herself during the necropsy.