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: 112
128
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wishes

All I do know. If I'm in a hospital elevator with someone who is sneezing...airborn or not, I'm going to hold my breath, and scrunch up against the wall as far away from the sneezer as I can. Because I do consider a sneeze as projecting something into the air.

Des




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: wishes

One thing, it isn't airborne...you can't use that term when referring to a pathogen. Airborne means you breath it out and its there and then floats around and finds a host.

Ebola can't attach itself to a less than 5 micron droplet because the smallest droplets that leave the body are from sneezing and are, as posted earlier, over 50 microns in size mainly ranging from 74-200+.


Can you clarify the bold (mine) there? I'll agree with the first part, < 5 microns, but it has no problems on particles larger than that, which would make sneezing a primary transmission method. Heck, at one micron in length, you can fit about 74-200 viruses in a single sneeze, and it only takes one to infect a host.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko and @ kriphix

Yes, exactly then - medically is one understanding of airborne and we (laymen) have another understanding. I think that's where some of the wires are getting crossed in previous posts and why some posters are adamant it is airborne and others insist it (medically speaking) is not.

So Ebola cannot be considered airborne (even when it is being carried by a sneeze) medically speaking. Practically and technically speaking it 'is' airborne if it is traveling through the air but is a misleading way to think of it?

For the sake of communication I hope readers will keep this in mind for future discussions. :-)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

Greetings Des and I am grateful to see your wonderful mind at work on this crisis. One concern I have had in what isn't being clearly stated is testing a patient before they are symptomatic. I was hoping to see if you fine folks had gotten to the root of this vagueness in most reports from the CDC on down.

Can it be done? Here is a new, also vague, report of emergency testing approval:


The FDA has authorized use of an unapproved Ebola virus test under a special emergency-use provision...

The test-tube diagnostic test was developed by the U.S. military and is used to detect the Zaire strain of Ebola, which has infected at least 1,711 and killed 932 in West Africa.

"The test is designed for use in individuals, including Department of Defense personnel and responders, who may be at risk of infection as a result of the outbreak," FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in a statement.  



"Specifically, the test is intended for use in individuals with signs and symptoms of infection with Ebola Zaire virus, who are at risk for exposure to the virus or who may have been exposed to the virus."

source

Why I keep looking for a NOT VAGUE answer is because, for me at least, Ebola is going to 100 percent fly into other countries by people who don't know they are infected. I am getting the sense from reports that we do not have tests that will show a positive until someone is symptomatic AND contagious. Reliably at least. If we can't test someone early on after an exposure and have to wait days or weeks for symptoms to develop to register positive results that is a huge concern. I have far more concern if that is the case than I do about two missionaries we brought home and have isolated in the level of containment offered in Atlanta.

It's going to get here...regardless, I believe. My question and I hope you in this thread have found the answer is...how long could unknowingly infected people walk around before a test can work?

Peace to you Des and good to see the minds at ATS hard at work.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I've already established it can ride a sneeze...that's pretty well known...

The droplet would have to physically come into contact with a person within a few feet. That is still not airborne. Kruphix used a great illustration about aids. If someone bites their tounge and is bleeding then sneezes blood into your face is that airborne transmission?

a reply to: Druid42



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

"sneezing, coughing"

the suits protecting them from droplets. Droplets flying through the air...

Airborne definition

1. carried by the air, as pollen or dust

That must mean the droplets are in fact carried by air (airborne) when you sneeze.

Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
You are correct.

a reply to: wishes



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Now google the medical definition of airborne...

a reply to: MrLimpet



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Quick reply is: as soon as their bodies start to replicate the disease in their secretions. But you will not get any support for that answer in this thread. Every time that's suggested, it's blown off as "doom porn". So you must do your own studies for yourself, and decide accordingly. Many of us believe it is sooner than symptoms. Some decry this as "doom porn." YOU have to decide for yourself at this point.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Not sure if people have seen this yet, maybe I missed it. I thought it was interesting in what it didn't say:

CDC: Interim Guidance for Specimen Collection, Transport, Testing, and Submission for Patients with Suspected Infection with Ebola Virus Disease

It goes into lots of details about how it should be packed, what should be written on the outside of the package, where to call for a consultation before shipping it, where to ship it, etc. But it doesn't say HOW to ship it.

Maybe they give special instructions when you call to consult with them, but the CDC sure gives the impression that you're just supposed to drop it off at your closest post office, or UPS or FedEx office for normal shipping. Bizarre.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan, I'm on a phone and it won't let me paste, but it's easy enough to google. He was working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and accidentally exposed himself go an early symptomatic carrier.

a reply to: Krakatoa



That's ok. We can wait.

You said bio's. How many are there?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Now google the medical definition of airborne...

a reply to: MrLimpet



Googling "airborne":

air·borne
ˈe(ə)rˌbôrn/
adjective
adjective: airborne

transported by air.
"airborne pollutants"
(of an aircraft) in the air after taking off.
synonyms: flying, in flight, in the air, on the wing More



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Or you can take the CDC's expert analysis...why do you continue to ignore the link I posted about how it is spread and that it isn't airborne?

a reply to: 00nunya00



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: 00nunya00


Please post 100% proven links to studies of how they got this disease, otherwise, your "opinion" and "ideas" are just baseless speculation. Please provide scientific proof.


To say they got it through the agreed upon transmission route for this disease is not speculation.

To say that Ebola is not airborne and can even get through hazmat suits is speculation.


Can you provide a 100% certain scientific study of how THESE professionals got it? If not, it's baseless speculation on your part. Please only contribute 100% PROVEN facts, no "strongly suggested" or "possible" methods. Thanks.

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


With all due respect - the OP says nothing about limiting contribution to this thread to only scientific proof, 100% proven links to studies and that opinions and ideas don't matter. Everyone has the right to contribute their thoughts and ideas, it would be nice to remain respectful of such.

A few posts back you were adamant that 100 medical workers acquired Ebola while wearing hazmat suits - I have no idea if this is true or not, but by your own standards you should have to be providing 100% proof and scientific links to back it up, yes?

We're all here for the same reason and share the same risks. If people are pushed away we lose like minds and they are most precious to have.
edit on 6-8-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan, I'm on a phone and it won't let me paste, but it's easy enough to google. He was working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and accidentally exposed himself go an early symptomatic carrier.

a reply to: Krakatoa



Here is his bio: Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan
In it he is listed as a noted expert in the field of Lassa Fever (not Ebola). Lassa is a viral hemorrhagic fever, but, it is not Ebola.
A story of his death from CNN: Ebola doctor in Sierra Leone dies (no mention of how he contracted it here)
A story about his work and a mention of his death: Top doctor dies from Ebola after treating dozens (no mention of how he contracted it here)
A blurb report on him from CBS News: Top Ebola doctor Sheik Humarr Khan dies (no mention of how he contracted it here)
Sierra Leone’s top Ebola doctor, Sheik Umar Khan, dies from virus as major airline suspends flights (no mention of how he contracted it here) However, the photos from the site clearly show the precautions used there are NOT (I repeat not) close to BL-4 protections. They are not wearing fully contained hazmat suits.

This one shows the setup of the main clinic....


This one shows the "High Risk Zone" (with arrows I added indicating the areas of potential infection, including a woman not protected at all)



edit on 8/6/2014 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Not since Sandy Hook have I seen such a flustercluck of media reporting, both msm and alternative....sigh...
When this nonsense of bringing ebola to the US began, I began trying to follow it fairly closely and spent a good deal of time reading what was being shoved out at us. But after about six hours of reading, I began to realize that facts were going to be hard to find. With my intense distrust of what government bureaucrazies say when questioned by the media I find little comfort in the pronouncements of the head of any governmental agency. The CDC, according to three docs I've known who did rotations there, is just as full of corruption and ineptitude as any other government-run service. They came out of their rotations knowing that when the poop hits the fan in a biological sense, they'd better be sure their area was prepared to deal with it because the CDC would be doing a lot of talking and little else.
The reporting on this brings to mind a line from a Don Henley song, "She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye."
Nothing I've heard has convinced me that this bringing of ebola to our land is a smart thing to do. I have a great deal of compassion for those who are afflicted with such a horrible disease but I have a lot of reservations about bringing them into the general population. It's just too much like Captain Trips.
Those aid workers knew what they were doing when they volunteered to go there and do the work. I'd bet they even had to sign papers saying they wouldn't blame their charitable organization in case of .....bad things happening. Why not fly them to a hospital ship if they couldn't be treated in place?
I do find it highly ironic that the magic potion is made from tobacco---a crop some folks have been trying to wipe out completely.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: wishes


Does this not mean that "technically" Ebola can be considered air born "when" it is carried by something like a sneeze or gushing blood?


Ebola, these strains and at this time, is simple not airborne, it's just not....there is nothing else to say about it...it is not airborne....period...done....end.



I think we have beat the non-airborne aspect of Ebola into the ground. Most posters understand that it is not airborne, but I did a font size change to emphasize something that most of us are expecting. Mutation. Once a certain number of people are infected, it's quite possible but not a fact that it will mutate.

Next I would love to hear someone say, "It will not and cannot mutate."



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Or you can take the CDC's expert analysis...why do you continue to ignore the link I posted about how it is spread and that it isn't airborne?

a reply to: 00nunya00


That is not 100% certain. Please provide a 100% certain study. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
www.thefreedictionary.com...

airborne transmission - a transmission mechanism in the which the infectious agent is spread as an aerosol and usually enters a person through the respiratory tract

a reply to: 00nunya00


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



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

You beat me to it. Thanks!

Didn't see much difference in what I posted. You?



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join