Two more countries report citizens killed by Ebola

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: redshoesi dont wont to get into your arguement but are jihadists as you call them suicide bombers and such ,so why would a suicide freak worry ,i mean got to be easier and cheaper then training them to fly planes..,so if you hate a country like the u.s.a this is the new cheaper method to take them out,,makes sense even just on a financial level,

That is a good point.

However, I don't personally think jihadists are going to try and spread it.

The world is spreading it just fine on its own.

With air travel, business travel, now that we know despite claims otherwise, science has proved Ebola to be airborne;
it will spread across the globe.

The only way to stop it now is to have a world wide quarantine. Tell everyone to prepare for a month of home quarantine and shut down everything world wide. Won't happen.

a reply to: stuthealien

Undoubtedly, IF they could manage to overcome the issue with finding a viable and dependable transmission agent and remain uninfected themselves long enough to carry out their master plan.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that wilfully infecting yourself with a deadly virus would be an acceptable way for a suicidal jihadist to enter heaven.

Like I said im my original post, I am more concerned about Ebola now that I hear about the suspected Saudi case, but it has nothing to do with the sort of lazy racism involved in screaming "Jihad!" just because the virus has possible shown up in Jeddah.

(All reports I've seen so far indicate that the Saudi case was a 'suspected' case, not as yet confirmed.)

Also don't underestimate the human capacity to F**K up and make things worse than they need to be.

a reply to: redshoesive met a few africans amazing buisness skills ,,i bet you could buy an ebola victim in a bodybag easily enough ,why are you assuming they dont have the tech skills ,these people are willing to die,im sure a syringe of infected blood is enough then infect a few in your mosque of choice then send to the states to collect there virgins,,easy peasy
i think you under estimate them ,and maybe will be your downfall???

a reply to: intrptr

The title of that article in the link reads "Ebola may go airborne". Thats their disclaimer that it isn't yet. But if you are in the same room with a dozen sick piglets you will probably get it to. Aerosolized sneeze, cough (and snort) droplets are hot.

I was riding in a bus once and someone sneezed.

a reply to: redshoes

…or sneaking into a level 4 lab and walking out with a bucket full of body fluids and managing to distribute the virus among your enemies before you keel over and bleed out yourself.

Meh…
Current reports have cases surviving long enough to reach other countries by plane. Africa has no level four labs like in other countries . Its not like your breaking into the basement of CDC and stealing vials.

If a Taliban in disguise can kill a General in Afghanistan, then I am sure similarly minded individuals can don a white coat and pretend to be doctors. Remember, the martyr complex some people exhibit goes a long way to accomplishing any "mission".

Ebola is 24 hours from anywhere by jet liner.

Done here.

healthmap.org...

Apparently there were three different methods for possibly transmission between the two species including the possibility that the scientists cross contaminated the cages during cleaning.
This article and another I read on a Canadian site that employees Dr Kobinger ( who made the claim of airborne transmission) .
The above link states as did the first article I read that there is a difference in large droplet and aerosolized tiny droplets in that large droplets can only travel a very short distance and they die easily while aerosolized droplets live longer and travel much further. The common cold or flu is spread by aerosolized droplets.

It's also killed on surfaces with common disinfectants. I already linked it in another thread. If you want proof Google it. I'm not linking it again. Don't believe me? That's your prerogative. reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
The strain that infected those pigs and monkeys is a,different one. That strain does not affect humans. a reply to: grandmakdw

This does not constitute proof that the strain that is spreading through West Africa does not spread by means other than direct contact though.
One thing is certain. This strain has spread further, infected and killed more humans than any other to date.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: redshoesive met a few africans amazing buisness skills ,,i bet you could buy an ebola victim in a bodybag easily enough ,why are you assuming they dont have the tech skills ,these people are willing to die,im sure a syringe of infected blood is enough then infect a few in your mosque of choice then send to the states to collect there virgins,,easy peasy
i think you under estimate them ,and maybe will be your downfall???

I've lived and worked in the middle east for a number of years. I was in Lebanon when the Israeli's invaded in 2007. I've also done business with African businessmen as you call them. Having worked in various parts of Africa also. (Oh and lets just assume that all Africans are the same for the sake your argument.)

If I had to put my faith in the CDC and the WHO or some dodgy bush merchant who wants to try and sell an infected body, I know which option is the more likely to be successful. Now if we were talking about the Iranians or the Chinese or the Russians, wanting to take advantage of the situation to attack the US, or some other state with and as yet undetermined transmission agent, then I'd be more worried.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to deny ignorance is with facts, not fanciful theories that seem to make sense without anything other to go on then your own imagination.

Deny ignorance, and please, don't risk making racist assumptions about people of other nationalities. It detracts from your argument.

a reply to: grandmakdw Transmission from animal to animal, does not mean it is airborne for animal to human or human to human. This is an example of animal to animal airborne transmission. Not to be taken lightly as it is indicative of the viruses ability to mutate, but not indicative that a human or animal can pass the virus to another human through airborne transmission. This also does not mean that it has not mutated to airborne transmission, but we are not being told that at present and there is no published case study to make that suggestion.

originally posted by: SunnyRunner360
a reply to: grandmakdw Transmission from animal to animal, does not mean it is airborne for animal to human or human to human. This is an example of animal to animal airborne transmission. Not to be taken lightly as it is indicative of the viruses ability to mutate, but not indicative that a human or animal can pass the virus to another human through airborne transmission. This also does not mean that it has not mutated to airborne transmission, but we are not being told that at present and there is no published case study to make that suggestion.

I agree.
There is the possibility of transmission of the virus human to human by aerosol droplets such as those created by a sneeze by the previously existing strains of ebola, right?

a reply to: redshoes
there was nothing rascist in my statement just the way you chose to interpret it,and then belittle my post by calling me rascist,and why would russia attack the states more likely the other way round,oh yeah funny that they already are in the ukraine ,,,

It's spread further through human travel. So far there have been no cases that originated outside the hot zone. Every one suspected to be infected outside Africa has been to the hot zone. a reply to: butcherguy

a reply to: grandmakdw

There is no indication that this outbreak spreads via airborne particles. The epidemic is behaving like Ebola always has. Through contact with sick people.

Now it might be in Thailand...

Thailand health officials monitoring 21 tourists to determine if they are infected with Ebola - @BPBreakingNews

www.bangkokpost.com...

Back in 1918 at the end of world war one the Spanish flu went pandemic. It traveled around the globe in a day when air travel was not common. In a fort in Kentucky a man got sick on March 2 . By the 10th eight days later 100 soldiers were sick with the disease. Eight days later. 100 fold increase in cases. Flu is an airborne disease. Now compare that to this outbreak of Ebola. This outbreak began some time in late February or early March. Over 150 days later there have only been 1700 cases. If it was airborne there should have been 100 New cases every 10 days and each of those should have spread to 100 more. There would be tens of thousands of cases already. Every person on every plane every person in every airport could have been a potential carrier. That's not the case. The history of this outbreak doesn't support an airborne theory.


a reply to: grandmakdw

a reply to: butcherguy Many, many years ago I was in school to become a microbiologist and had a particular interest in Ebola, but as time has past I have forgotten much of what I have learned and am relying on what I am able to search. Nearly everything I have read on the current state of the virus is that it cannot be transmitted through a cough or a sneeze as this would imply that it is aerosilized (meaning it is coming from respiratory droplets originating from the lungs, which is not among the body fluids in which the virus lives). That said, when people sneeze, they are not just expelling air from the lungs but are additionally expelling sputum which IS a method of transmission. The virus can live up to a couple days outside of a human host when body fluids are expelled. I am not fully certain I understand why they say it cannot be passed through a sneeze-- doesn't ad up to me, but like I said I have forgotten much of my education.

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

The article says that since June 8 the authorities have monitored 300 people who have traveled to west Africa. The 21 they are currently monitoring are those still within the 21day incubation period. No cases of Ebola are in Thailand at this time and these people are only being monitored they are not quarantined. The article also states that they don't believe Ebola will be an issue in Thailand. Just to clarify a few points.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yes, I know. All I'm doing is sharing news I find of new locations where the virus might pop up.

a reply to: SunnyRunner360
Thank you for the reply.
I agree that there could be other fluids involved in a sneeze, especially if the victim has started to have bleeding occur from small blood vessels in the nasal passages.
I wouldn't want an ebola victim sneezing in my general vicinity, of that much I am certain.