It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

page: 102
128
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Quoting for Loam as asked:

Here is what I see as the problem. There is in fact a distinction between droplet transmission and airborne transmission. In fact, the CDC describes droplet transmission as follows:




I.B.3.b. Droplet transmission:

Droplet transmission is, technically, a form of contact transmission, and some infectious agents transmitted by the droplet route also may be transmitted by the direct and indirect contact routes.

...

The maximum distance for droplet transmission is currently unresolved, although pathogens transmitted by the droplet route have not been transmitted through the air over long distances, in contrast to the airborne pathogens discussed below. Historically, the area of defined risk has been a distance of 5 μm in size. Droplet nuclei, particles arising from desiccation of suspended droplets, have been associated with airborne transmission and defined as




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

When did I say the subway was safe? I said people in the immediate vicinity could probably catch it if an infected person was spitting, coughing and sneezing all over people next to him. The entire train would not get infected. I have said the entire time it requires CLOSE CONTACT. 3 feet is pretty close. That is literally an arms length away.

Also, the quotes are breaking because of the less and greater than symbols.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

You do know the serum is completely experimental at this point, right? Also as has been stated pages ago the reason these 2 were taken to EMORY was for research alone! This is the first time Scientists/researchers have ever had the opportunity to study EBOLA this far advanced in a person still alive!! This is cutting edge research we are talking about.

The serum was originally flown to Africa to help save there lives! But there was only one dose! Brantley was near death at the time they received the serum. It was offered to him only but he said no there is a better chance of saving nancy give the dose to her!! so she received the dose not him! he however received a unit of blood from a patient whom he had treated and recovered from the Ebola virus. that transfusion introduced antigens into his blood stream which produced antibodies and is allowing him to improve! This being probably the main reason he was able to walk into the hospital.

For people saying it was a mistake for them to brought here....I have a couple of things to add. If they had not been brought here do you really think we would have avoided this problem getting worse? Someone else would and probably has introduced this virus to the U.S. Therefore the best chance we have at avoiding a full blown epidemic is to study the tissue cells and do everything we can to come up with a cure or even better an effective SAFE vaccine...


These 2 people gave themselves over to help the people of a third world country when they saw this could be a potential problem...Then they selflessly said yes use our bodies for research even if we dont make it. This was the risk involved in them making this tremendous flight. Thank God they did, because like it or not the disease would have made it here eventually...and now we have at least a small chance of possibly eradicating the virus forever.

How many here, knowing what you know about ebola would volunteer to go help in Africa even if the problem had been combined to one village? I am ashamed to say that as a RN and had i been given that opportunity I would have said NO!! NOT ME please find someone else!

Pax



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

That isn't what he wants, he is trying to get the entire definition but the greater and less than symbols are breaking it.

The way it comes across edits it down and is misleading as it merges several different topics together.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

That's not my full post.

I'll U2U it and you can post it.

ETA:

Just sent you a U2U.

edit on 6-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You said coughing and sneezing was not a symptom of ebola, and therefore could not be considered a usual mode of transmission because those who have coughs or sneezes have complication of the disease and will not be walking around. Shall I quote you post for you?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: paxnatus

I have not argued any ethics on who gets the serum. I said if I'm being altruistic, it should be a lottery (blind). If I'm being selfish, it should be for me and mine. I'm being honest. No need for arguing against me on this issue; I understand both the pro and con.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

Wow. Yes, by all means quote me.

Coughing is a secondary symptom and is not related directly to the Ebola virus. It can be brought on by psychosomatic response to sickness or secondary infection cause while the immune system is vulnerable. It is not a primary symptom of Ebola and MOST PEOPLE never develop a cough.

I used coughing and sneezing in my post merely as an example of how it would have to be transmitted, as should have been clear from the spitting part...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

Droplet transmission means the viral particle is attached to fluid of some kind and the particle is larger..and does not stay in the air as long as airborne virons

airborne transmission means transmitted through microscopic virons such as in influenza...Remember whe we had the swine flu "pandemic"? and they told everyone to wear mask? well those masks were not gonna help prevent you from becoming infected. It would have taken a special respirator type masks to filter out virons as tiny as those...

so just breathing the same air as an infected ebola victim would mean they were transmitting their disease through the air to everyone around them....



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
This is good little video from Sanjay Gupta, notice his use of the phrase "close contact" -- not direct contact. He also calls this outbreak unprecedented. I can't imbed as it's not on youtube.

How an Ebola outbreak can start, and end

Also being reported:

A patient in Saudi Arabia has died of a hemorrhagic fever.


But concerns about the spread of the deadly virus escalated with Saudi Arabia reporting that a man died, apparently of the virus, after a trip to Sierra Leone


And a Spanish priest with Ebola is being flown into Madrid for treatment.


Meanwhile, a Spanish priest who contracted the disease in Liberia will be flown to Madrid and become Europe's first patient from this outbreak, according to the Spanish government.


Link

Will this Spanish Priest get the serum?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Quoting for Loam:


a reply to: raymundoko

Here is what I see as the problem. There is in fact a distinction between droplet transmission and airborne transmission. In fact, the CDC describes droplet transmission as follows:





I.B.3.b. Droplet transmission:

Droplet transmission is, technically, a form of contact transmission, and some infectious agents transmitted by the droplet route also may be transmitted by the direct and indirect contact routes.

...

The maximum distance for droplet transmission is currently unresolved, although pathogens transmitted by the droplet route have not been transmitted through the air over long distances, in contrast to the airborne pathogens discussed below. Historically, the area of defined risk has been a distance of [less than] 3 feet around the patient and is based on epidemiologic and simulated studies of selected infections 103, 104.


CDC Link.



With me so far?

Now the CDC proceeds to say:




Droplet size is another variable under discussion. Droplets traditionally have been defined as being >5 μm in size. Droplet nuclei, particles arising from desiccation of suspended droplets, have been associated with airborne transmission and defined as [less than] 5 μm in size...

Observations of particle dynamics have demonstrated that a range of droplet sizes, including those with diameters of 30μm or greater, can remain suspended in the air. The behavior of droplets and droplet nuclei affect recommendations for preventing transmission. Whereas fine airborne particles containing pathogens that are able to remain infective may transmit infections over long distances, requiring AIIR to prevent its dissemination within a facility; organisms transmitted by the droplet route do not remain infective over long distances, and therefore do not require special air handling and ventilation.



So infectious droplet range is under question. (I'll come back to this.)

The CDC defines airborne transmission as follows:





I.B.3.c. Airborne transmission:

Airborne transmission occurs by dissemination of either airborne droplet nuclei or small particles in the respirable size range containing infectious agents that remain infective over time and distance (e.g., spores of Aspergillus spp, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis).




Note that airborne transmission involves droplets too. So the distinction hinges on infectious droplets under 5 micrometers that remain infective over time and distance.

First, let's cover the distance issue.

In April of this year, a study published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, addressed this very issue:


Droplets from coughs and sneezes travel farther than you think

It is common knowledge that when we cough or sneeze, we should cover our mouth and nose with a tissue to prevent germs from becoming airborne. Now, new research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests this instruction is more important than ever; they found that droplets from coughs or sneezes can travel up to 200 times farther than previously thought.

...

The team found that, contrary to previous beliefs, each droplet from a cough or sneeze is connected through interaction with a gas cloud.

...

Droplets that are 100 micrometers in diameter were found to travel five times farther than past estimates, while droplets 10 micrometers in diameter were found to travel 200 times farther. In addition, the team found that droplets less that 50 micrometers in size are often able to stay airborne long enough to enter ceiling ventilation units.



That certainly calls into question the three feet language I've see thrown about in the media. Moreover, the question of what happens to pathogens in the droplets carried by the gas cloud is still under investigation.

Now, let's cover the time issue.


SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.


Source.

So Ebola can live outside a host in liquid AND dried material at room temperature for several days.

Finally, let's discuss the size of the Ebola virus:


It is an elongated filamentous molecule, which can vary between 800 - 1000 nm in length, and can reach up to14000 nm long (due to concatamerization) with a uniform diameter of 80 nm.


Source.

Incidentally, 1 micrometer equals 1000 nanometers, which is relevant when you consider the less than 5 micrometer airborne distinction described above.

Now all of this is not to say the current Ebola crisis we are facing is in fact airborne. But it is meant to warn against DEFINITIVE pronouncements that it is not or can't be.

The word "MAYBE" should not be eliminated from our discussions.

**************

END
edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

Wow. Yes, by all means quote me.

Coughing is a secondary symptom and is not related directly to the Ebola virus. It can be brought on by psychosomatic response to sickness or secondary infection cause while the immune system is vulnerable. It is not a primary symptom of Ebola and MOST PEOPLE never develop a cough.

I used coughing and sneezing in my post merely as an example of how it would have to be transmitted, as should have been clear from the spitting part...


Ah, you're right, it was your buddy krufnix or whatever. Those of you without avatars are hard to distinguish, being faceless and all::


originally posted by: kruphix
Since those of you who are claiming Ebola is airborne are comfortable using the CDC factsheet as a source...let me point this out from the fact sheet.


When an infection does occur in humans, there are several ways in which the virus can be transmitted to others. These
include:
• direct contact with the blood or secretions of an infected person
• exposure to objects (such as needles) that have been contaminated with infected secretions


I don't see any airborne transmission on there...I don't see sneezes or coughs as a mode of transmission.

So since you guys are using this as a source...please believe your own source.


My bad.....so you agree the subway is not safe?
edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

Just sent you a U2U with the full post. Can you edit the one above?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

Oh goodness. Nowhere in there is infection droplet range under question. It says less than 3 feet clearly, and says to use 6-10 feet for good measure.

He doesn't even need to go into the part about airborne because EBOLA IS NOT AIRBORNE.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: 00nunya00

Just sent you a U2U with the full post. Can you edit the one above?


Will do.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: marg6043
Found some information that mentions what NavyDoc made references too, but is not very specific.


In 1990, Hazelton Research Products' Reston Quarantine Unit in Reston, Virginia suffered a mysterious outbreak of fatal illness among a shipment of crab-eating macaque monkeys imported from the Philippines. The company's veterinary pathologist sent tissue samples from dead animals to the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, where a laboratory test known as an ELISA assay showed antibodies to Ebola virus.

Shortly afterward, a US Army team headquartered at USAMRIID went into action to euthanize the monkeys which had not yet died, bringing those monkeys and those which had already died of the disease to Ft. Detrick for study by the Army's veterinary pathologists and virologists, and eventual disposal under safe conditions.


The research was on Monkeys, if humans were also send to the Testing facility it most have been under very secret conditions.

en.wikipedia.org...


You may also want to read a novel by Richard Preston entitled, "The Hot Zone". It describes that incident in vivid and accurate detail. But, once you read that book, you may not sleep for weeks.

Link to book on Amazon


I read that book! And now all this e-bola stuff has been reminding me of it.

If I remember right, one of the people working at that lab got
bitten by an infected monkey, a janitor or something with no clue
the monkeys were infected, left the facility and it was weeks before
anyone knew what happened.

Something like that.

Rebel 5



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

Oh goodness. Nowhere in there is infection droplet range under question. It says less than 3 feet clearly, and says to use 6-10 feet for good measure.

He doesn't even need to go into the part about airborne because EBOLA IS NOT AIRBORNE.


Okay, so I'm just getting it on record, you admit that under 6 feet is not a safe distance, yes? So, public transportation with infected victims is unsafe, yes?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Man, I hope it's right this time. Quoting for Loam:


a reply to: raymundoko

Here is what I see as the problem. There is in fact a distinction between droplet transmission and airborne transmission. In fact, the CDC describes droplet transmission as follows:





I.B.3.b. Droplet transmission:

Droplet transmission is, technically, a form of contact transmission, and some infectious agents transmitted by the droplet route also may be transmitted by the direct and indirect contact routes.

...

The maximum distance for droplet transmission is currently unresolved, although pathogens transmitted by the droplet route have not been transmitted through the air over long distances, in contrast to the airborne pathogens discussed below. Historically, the area of defined risk has been a distance of [less than] 3 feet around the patient and is based on epidemiologic and simulated studies of selected infections 103, 104.


CDC Link.



With me so far?

Now the CDC proceeds to say:




Droplet size is another variable under discussion. Droplets traditionally have been defined as being >5 μm in size. Droplet nuclei, particles arising from desiccation of suspended droplets, have been associated with airborne transmission and defined as [less than] 5 μm in size...

Observations of particle dynamics have demonstrated that a range of droplet sizes, including those with diameters of 30μm or greater, can remain suspended in the air. The behavior of droplets and droplet nuclei affect recommendations for preventing transmission. Whereas fine airborne particles containing pathogens that are able to remain infective may transmit infections over long distances, requiring AIIR to prevent its dissemination within a facility; organisms transmitted by the droplet route do not remain infective over long distances, and therefore do not require special air handling and ventilation.



So infectious droplet range is under question. (I'll come back to this.)

The CDC defines airborne transmission as follows:





I.B.3.c. Airborne transmission:

Airborne transmission occurs by dissemination of either airborne droplet nuclei or small particles in the respirable size range containing infectious agents that remain infective over time and distance (e.g., spores of Aspergillus spp, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis).




Note that airborne transmission involves droplets too. So the distinction hinges on infectious droplets under 5 micrometers that remain infective over time and distance.

First, let's cover the distance issue.

In April of this year, a study published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, addressed this very issue:


Droplets from coughs and sneezes travel farther than you think

It is common knowledge that when we cough or sneeze, we should cover our mouth and nose with a tissue to prevent germs from becoming airborne. Now, new research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests this instruction is more important than ever; they found that droplets from coughs or sneezes can travel up to 200 times farther than previously thought.

...

The team found that, contrary to previous beliefs, each droplet from a cough or sneeze is connected through interaction with a gas cloud.

...

Droplets that are 100 micrometers in diameter were found to travel five times farther than past estimates, while droplets 10 micrometers in diameter were found to travel 200 times farther. In addition, the team found that droplets less that 50 micrometers in size are often able to stay airborne long enough to enter ceiling ventilation units.



That certainly calls into question the three feet language I've see thrown about in the media. Moreover, the question of what happens to pathogens in the droplets carried by the gas cloud is still under investigation.

Now, let's cover the time issue.


SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.


Source.

So Ebola can live outside a host in liquid AND dried material at room temperature for several days.

Finally, let's discuss the size of the Ebola virus:


It is an elongated filamentous molecule, which can vary between 800 - 1000 nm in length, and can reach up to14000 nm long (due to concatamerization) with a uniform diameter of 80 nm.


Source.

Incidentally, 1 micrometer equals 1000 nanometers, which is relevant when you consider the less than 5 micrometer airborne distinction described above.

Now all of this is not to say the current Ebola crisis we are facing is in fact airborne. But it is meant to warn against DEFINITIVE pronouncements that it is not or can't be.

The word "MAYBE" should not be eliminated from our discussions.

**************

END
edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-8-2014 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

Is the Subway safe right now? As safe as law enforcement can make it.

Would it be safe if there was an Ebola outbreak? I wouldn't be on it, I am not sure anyone would be...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

You'll need to eliminate the first and last quote brackets for it to show right.



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join