2014 Global Ebola Outbreak

[DeadPresident]

The main issue in the African countries isn't their medical facilities as the most crucial part, it's their cultural burial practices that spread the disease so quickly.

 

[Anita18]

Without any definite cure, what would you refer to it as?

A lot of things don't have definite cures. Like many viral infections, the only way to combat Ebola is to support the body until the immune system takes care of it itself.

Right now I'm reading a lot of primary sources. (Chose to talk about Ebola for next week's Toastmaster's speech - great dinner topic! ) People die from Ebola from essentially, shock. They lose too many fluids from vomiting, diarrhea, loss of blood vessel integrity, loss of blood clotting, and their blood pressure drops. That's why giving them IV fluids is the best route to take, if none of the experimental drugs are available. At least they don't die of shock.

And it isn't people "randomly" getting it. Ebola is a very easy disease to contact trace, because you have to be very very close to a very very sick person to guarantee transmission.

 

[Schlosser85]

Not having a cure is not the same as being "100% fatal". Both American aid workers made full recoveries, so please don't post BS as fact. I already have people doing that all over my Facebook, and it doesn't help anything.

 

[Anita18]

The first person who was in contact with Thomas Eric Duncan in the US has just been cleared from quarantine. Duncan's fiancee Louise will be out of quarantine on Sunday. They were with him without PPE when he first started vomiting and already had a fever, yet it was the nurses caring for him as he lay dying, that got sick mere days after exposure.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...t-ebola-patient-asked-to-limit-movement.html/

I think that is a very significant development. Just being around someone with Ebola who has just started throwing up won't doom you. I would say it's VERY unlikely for someone to contract Ebola from someone who isn't on their deathbed. Possible, but extremely unlikely.

 

[craigdbfan]

It would make sense. The virus is at its most desperate when it's current host is about to expire so finding another host at that point is priority #1.

 

[Anita18]

It would make sense. The virus is at its most desperate when it's current host is about to expire so finding another host at that point is priority #1.

Cute idea, but not true. Viruses are not parasites. They're not even technically alive like bacteria. Viruses are just a piece of genetic material with the ability to sabotage cells, forcing the cells they take over to make copies of other viruses. That's all they do.

The viral load at that point, when the patient is dying, is extremely high because the virus is just going from cell to cell, taking it over and making more copies of itself, and it's had a lot of time to do so. (One of Ebola's target cells are immune cells, so they literally have free reign in the body at that point too.)

It isn't like a tapeworm trying to "escape" a dying host. It's just the way it works out physiologically.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

A guy at my school (UT Austin) was on the same plane as the nurse flying back from Cleveland. He is staying home until the incubation period is supposed to end, but he wasn't anywhere near the nurse so he's going to be fine. I doubt anyone else was infected, too.

 

[Doctor Evo]

They're not even technically alive like bacteria.

I agree with your overall point, but this is true only according to a definition of life which requires the ability to metabolize independently of other organisms (which, many would argue, is not all that important), and doesn't free them from the burden of selective pressures. It's a bit irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[Anita18]

I agree with your overall point, but this is true only according to a definition of life which requires the ability to metabolize independently of other organisms (which, many would argue, is not all that important), and doesn't free them from the burden of selective pressures. It's a bit irrelevant to the point at hand.

Shush, you're going to confuse the non-bio nerds.

 

[craigdbfan]

I agree with your overall point, but this is true only according to a definition of life which requires the ability to metabolize independently of other organisms (which, many would argue, is not all that important), and doesn't free them from the burden of selective pressures. It's a bit irrelevant to the point at hand.

Thanks for the explanation. Thanks to that I did some research and I guess the proper term of the life cycle stage in which it "spreads" is viral shedding. That apparently only happens when the virus has exhausted its replicating process within the cells of its current host.

Very interesting. I used the wrong terminology in my original post but the outcome seems to be more or less the same. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. All of this is pretty interesting.

 

[Lily Adler]

Shush, you're going to confuse the non-bio nerds.

Durr, me no understand bio speak...

 

[Doctor Evo]

Shush, you're going to confuse the non-bio nerds.

lol

 

[craigdbfan]

Durr, me no understand bio speak...

 

[Doctor Evo]

Thanks for the explanation. Thanks to that I did some research and I guess the proper term of the life cycle stage in which it "spreads" is viral shedding. That apparently only happens when the virus has exhausted its replicating process within the cells of its current host.

Very interesting. I used the wrong terminology in my original post but the outcome seems to be more or less the same. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. All of this is pretty interesting.

It can get really, really complicated, but the important thing to remember - and what I think Anita was getting at - is that viruses, and evolutionary processes in general, are not "forward-thinking," or self-aware.

However, the persistence of a virus (along with those organisms who may be considered truly "alive") depends upon the ability to replicate itself. In the case of a virus which generally kills its host, the ability to transfer itself to new hosts before (or very shortly after) the death of the current host is crucial.

This constitutes a selective pressure, which acts upon viruses as much as it acts upon any truly "living" organism (because they abide by the same basic evolutionary rules). Thus, we might expect some viruses to evolve increased virulence, or increased pathogenicity - especially if they are particularly deadly.

So it may well be that an increased viral load is merely an effect of time (as Anita has said), but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been selected for through the virus' natural history. In that sense, you may be right. The trait of "viral shedding" may indeed be selectively advantageous.

What I think Anita may have taken issue with is wording/phrasing rather than with core concepts. It was probably the word, "desperate." That's what I noticed right away. That implies some level of self-awareness that most wouldn't assign to a virus - least of all a biologist.

But I can't pretend to speak for Anita.

 

[Anita18]

It can get really, really complicated, but the important thing to remember - and what I think Anita was getting at - is that viruses, and evolutionary processes in general, are not "forward-thinking," or self-aware.

However, the persistence of a virus (along with those organisms who may be considered truly "alive") depends upon the ability to replicate itself. In the case of a virus which generally kills its host, the ability to transfer itself to new hosts before (or very shortly after) the death of the current host is crucial.

This constitutes a selective pressure, which acts upon viruses as much as it acts upon any truly "living" organism (because they abide by the same basic evolutionary rules). Thus, we might expect some viruses to evolve increased virulence, or increased pathogenicity - especially if they are particularly deadly.

So it may well be that an increased viral load is merely an effect of time (as Anita has said), but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been selected for through the virus' natural history. In that sense, you may be right. The trait of "viral shedding" may indeed be selectively advantageous.

What I think Anita may have taken issue with is wording/phrasing rather than with core concepts. It was probably the word, "desperate." That's what I noticed right away. That implies some level of self-awareness that most wouldn't assign to a virus - least of all a biologist.

But I can't pretend to speak for Anita.

Yah. Like I said, it isn't a tapeworm actively trying to escape.

 

[craigdbfan]

It can get really, really complicated, but the important thing to remember - and what I think Anita was getting at - is that viruses, and evolutionary processes in general, are not "forward-thinking," or self-aware.

However, the persistence of a virus (along with those organisms who may be considered truly "alive") depends upon the ability to replicate itself. In the case of a virus which generally kills its host, the ability to transfer itself to new hosts before (or very shortly after) the death of the current host is crucial.

This constitutes a selective pressure, which acts upon viruses as much as it acts upon any truly "living" organism (because they abide by the same basic evolutionary rules). Thus, we might expect some viruses to evolve increased virulence, or increased pathogenicity - especially if they are particularly deadly.

So it may well be that an increased viral load is merely an effect of time (as Anita has said), but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been selected for through the virus' natural history. In that sense, you may be right. The trait of "viral shedding" may indeed be selectively advantageous.

What I think Anita may have taken issue with is wording/phrasing rather than with core concepts. It was probably the word, "desperate." That's what I noticed right away. That implies some level of self-awareness that most wouldn't assign to a virus - least of all a biologist.

But I can't pretend to speak for Anita.

Thanks for all that info.

It was definitely my use of desperate. Like you said that would imply a level of self awareness which isn't present in a virus. Definitely my mistake there.

 

[harryoscop]

Why can't they shut down all flights to and from places affected by Ebola in Africa?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Why can't they shut down all flights to and from places affected by Ebola in Africa?

Most of these people are too poor to be buying passports and airplane tickets. Two, I think most flight from those countries come from Europe, so it would be Europe that has to stop those flights.

Plus, if you really want to get here, then just take a flight to Canada then drive across the border.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Most of these people are too poor to be buying passports and airplane tickets.

……..

I didn't know Ebola was only attracted to the dirt poor. You do know Ebola has infected rich and poor alike, right? It's spread like wildfire through multiple countries; it's not staying in the slums. And it's pretty ignorant to say people in those West African countries can't be rich, or their rich citizens and tourists can't contract Ebola.

Two, I think most flight from those countries come from Europe, so it would be Europe that has to stop those flights.

There's plenty of flights that come into the US from West Africa.

Plus, if you really want to get here, then just take a flight to Canada then drive across the border.

There's these things called Passports with stamps from countries we visited. Border control looks at these and determines if we're a risk. If it was that easy to sneak into the country, we'd have a thousand Al Qaeda cells.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

……..

I didn't know Ebola was only attracted to the dirt poor. You do know Ebola has infected rich and poor alike, right? It's spread like wildfire through multiple countries; it's not staying in the slums. And it's pretty ignorant to say people in those West African countries can't be rich, or their rich citizens and tourists can't contract Ebola.

Who said dirt poor except you?

I'm saying it takes a lot money to fly and most of people coming here have family already here. The US isn't some place you just come on a whim.

You're the one sounding ignorant.

There's plenty of flights that come into the US from West Africa.

West Africa isn't the the entirety of those three countries. You want to punish all of West Africa?

There's these things called Passports with stamps from countries we visited. Border control looks at these and determines if we're a risk. If it was that easy to sneak into the country, we'd have a thousand Al Qaeda cells.

People walk back and forth across the border in the NW all the time.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Who said dirt poor except you?

You, kinda. Sorry, you didn't say "dirt." But "poor", yes.

I'm saying it takes a lot money to fly and most of people coming here have family already here. The US isn't some place you just come on a whim.

You're the one sounding ignorant.

Really? Did a person bring, or did a person not bring a case of Ebola back with him from Liberia that has already infected two other nurses here and caused a complete medical emergency? Do you really think there aren't plane-loads of people coming from these high-risk countries every day? Some of them would have had exposure as well. So, no. Sorry. I know what I'm talking about.

West Africa isn't the the entirety of those three countries. You want to punish all of West Africa?

No, straw-man argument kid. I was speaking in general terms, so I could type faster. I know the countries that have had the largest outbreaks so far are Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

People walk back and forth across the border in the NW all the time.

These people aren't trying to sneak in bioweapons. They'd obviously drive or go through a border-crossing.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

You, kinda. Sorry, you didn't say "dirt." But "poor", yes.

Poor had many shades. Just like rich doesn't mean millionaire.

Really? Did a person bring, or did a person not bring a case of Ebola back with him from Liberia that has already infected two other nurses here and caused a complete medical emergency? Do you really think there aren't plane-loads of people coming from these high-risk countries every day? Some of them would have had exposure as well. So, no. Sorry. I know what I'm talking about.

And yet with all "them" supposed infected cases flying in and out of Europe first, the only cases in Europe is in Spain.

Edit: And maybe France now.

Why aren't there more cases in other African countries when they can freely walk across boarders anyways?


Travel bans won't work. If we don't stop it in these 3 countries then eventually Egyptians, Libyans, or Algerians will get sick in mass and then what?

No, straw-man argument kid. I was speaking in general terms, so I could type faster. I know the countries that have had the largest outbreaks so far are Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

Ain't so staw-man argument, kid.

Look at the scenario above. If it spreads into the African countries with larger economic value to America like Egypt, you think we should just shut off travel to all of Africa?

These people aren't trying to sneak in bioweapons. They'd obviously drive or go through a border-crossing.

Yeah, as long as they have American family driving to get them in Canada and aren't vomiting blood. What can they actually do to stop them if they said they are visiting family while in Canada? Like I said, Canada would have to stop them first.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Poor had many shades. Just like rich doesn't mean millionaire.

Is this something you're really going to argue about? What kind of poor you meant when you said "poor"?

And yet with all "them" supposed infected cases flying in and out of Europe first, the only cases in Europe is in Spain.

You make it sound like Ebola coming to Spain is a minor inconvenience.

Why aren't there more cases in other African countries when they can freely walk across boarders anyways?

What is it with you and freely walking across borders? Last I heard the borders in neighboring countries were being put in lockdown. I doubt people are strolling across any borders.

Travel bans won't work. If we don't stop it in these 3 countries then eventually Egyptians, Libyans, or Algerians will get sick in mass and then what?

A lot of people will die? Thanks for kind of proving my point for what a dangerous and volatile situation this is.

Yeah, as long as they have American family driving to get them in Canada and aren't vomiting blood. What can they actually do to stop them if they said they are visiting family while in Canada? Like I said, Canada would have to stop them first.

Passports have stamps. If one of those stamps was recent and for a place like Liberia, they'd probably make him wait a few days to make sure he didn't have it. That's what border control does. It controls the border.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Is this something you're really going to argue about? What kind of poor you meant when you said "poor"?

No. I was just saying these are largely impoverish countries with no large, diverse economic engines. The vast majority aren't taking planes out of their home countries anyways. Going to the US isn't like taking a family vacation to the beach. That's all.

You make it sound like Ebola coming to Spain is a minor inconvenience.

It's not. You are acting like "plane-loads" of people are coming out these countries that will infect people.

If that were true, the infection would be all over Europe already.

What is it with you and freely walking across borders? Last I heard the borders in neighboring countries were being put in lockdown. I doubt people are strolling across any borders.

Walk or drive doesn't matter.

These countries are economically interlinked with each other. People from infected countries have to cross borders for trade.

A lot of people will die? Thanks for kind of proving my point for what a dangerous and volatile situation this is.

No one is saying it's not dangerous. The point is that travel bans wouldn't work cause they'd have to account for the fact people in these countries aren't just immigrants from those 3 countries. China has freaking 10,000 workers in Sierra Leone.

They can travel wherever they want as long as they aren't visibly sick at the time.

Passports have stamps. If one of those stamps was recent and for a place like Liberia, they'd probably make him wait a few days to make sure he didn't have it. That's what border control does. It controls the border.

And what about the family? They are Americans. if they cross into Canada and back after being "infected" how can you stop them if they don't declare they met someone with from an Ebola country?

The govt. would have to twist itself into a knot to account for every variable.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/ebola-senegal-over_n_6003056.html

Senegal is hopefully Ebola free now.