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: Facts, Opinions, and Speculations.

page: 15
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Fact: Ebola is spread through bodily fluids
Fact: Ebola is not a respiratory disease in humans
Fact: Ebola is not airborne
Fact: The current outbreak is the Zaire strain of Ebola
Fact: Mortality rate for this outbreak is around 55%
Fact: This outbreak is larger due to it being spread early to three different locations, so there are really three different outbreaks going on

Opinion: People are over reacting to this situation and hyping it up. The media is doing it's best to scare people and they have succeeded. There is undue fear and panic running rampant in a lot of discussions/conversations about Ebola because people tend to speculate towards doom and gloom. People enjoy talking about doom and gloom, but it does little to help a real serious situation.

Speculation: These outbreaks will start to be contained now due to the attention they are getting. Even if other cases pop up in other countries, those will be handled much differently than the current situation in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. We won't see a worldwide pandemic and we aren't all going to die.




^This.

And just a speculation from my end: We should be more worried about the cases of TB showing up in Atlanta that isn't being shut down with medicine/vaccines. I mean, that's gotta be the big thing to worry about with Obama signing the executive order to detain those with respiratory ailments, right?

www.11alive.com...




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

On the other hand, the CFR open debate and the hearing are not media scare. And while it can be contained and my guess is it will be contained, they are not particularly sure of how. Maybe I am mistaken, but the persons talking did not sound actually sure of what could be done if it hit Lagos with a force.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
No no no just no. Your information is totally wrong. Please if you can't gather solid information don't bother contributing. You're either making it up as you go along or you're badly misinformed. You're going to scare people and that no right.
a reply to: reletomp



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
As far as this doctor's area of expertise tobacco causes diseases so it's quite in line with what the cdc does. It's not just contagious or infectious disease. It's all disease. They even have a department for inherited diseases. a reply to: reletomp



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

You're not getting the point I'm making. That's fine that the person they are watching is asymptomatic but what about the person who tested positive that was on that flight?
well what about them? Where are they now? Is there any follow up? Who was that person. You link doesn't say nor does it link to any other story. I'm very curious. Was it a case already discussed in the news. They say from a flight from Ghana. That's right there in the thick of things though I don't think there has been any reported cases outside Guinnie, Sierra Leon Liberia and Nigeria. (Forgive my spelling)
edit on PMu31u0883226312014-08-10T15:26:38-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)

edit on PMu31u0883230312014-08-10T15:30:54-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



originally posted by: reletomp
viruses dont mutate easy or in a short period of time. they can only mutate in laboratories copy/cut/paste.


originally posted by: reletomp
mutating is a rare probability.


The exact opposite is true. A virus will mutate often and easily and in a short period of time. Virus' mutate outside a laboratory all the time. That's why the flu virus shots are different every year.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
The Ebola is a,slow or even stable virus in that it doesn't live long enough to really mutate. It kills its host in many instances which is sad but in the big picture it's good in that mutations have not been noted in the known strains of the disease. . reply to: shrevegal



I would not call 3% difference in sequencing between when ZEBOV was first encountered and the latest iteration stable. Given that its been a number of years since theblast outbreak of this bug, its had plenty of time within its reservoir species to mutate as evidenced by the 3% genetic drift.

I've seen the "ebola doesnt mutate that much" notion posted a few times so I went looking...


However, an alternative (and arguably more likely) cause of novel pathogen emergence is where a “weakly adapted” strain (with R0 ≈ 1) mutates into a strongly adapted strain (with R0 ≫ 1).


It is apparent that the higher the R0, the more adapted the virus.


We produce a model of pathogen emergence that takes into account changes in the susceptible population over time and find that the ongoing depletion of susceptible individuals by the first strain has a drastic effect on the emergence probability of the mutated strain, above that assumed by just scaling the reproductive ratio.


It seems that one of the primary variables in determing the ability of a virus to mutate is the size of the population being infected. This makes logical sense and would be supported if this outbreak had followed the same pattern as prior ones of quick flare-up and die-down due to how deadly it is.

The only problem is that this outbreak is demonsyrably not dying down but seems to be growing beyond all prior outbreaks.

Here is the bit where it talks about outbreak being self-limiting:


However, if R0 [greater than] 1 initially, then the susceptible population would, in general, reduce over time as individuals become immune or die out. This reduces the emergence probability of the second strain, as there are fewer susceptible individuals available to transmit the pathogen to. Furthermore, the initial strain might continue to spread for awhile, hence further depleting the pool of susceptible hosts available to the mutant strain.



Ebola is even specifically mentioned:


Studying emergence of pandemic strains originating from intermediately adapted strains offers more applications for monitoring outbreaks than searching for strains originating from maladapted ones, because the initial strain is present in the population for a longer time. It also opens a new perspective for predicting the pandemic risk for pathogens that are known to be emerging (or re-emerging) but generate only localized outbreaks (e.g., with avian influenza or ebola).


I would not categorize the current outbreak of Ebola as "localized," however.


Overall, this example highlights that while susceptible depletion can strongly limit the emergence of mutated strains, the risk remains on the order of that expected for completely new strains emerging, meaning that there is still a nonnegligible risk of emergence.


Epidemiological Feedbacks Affect Evolutionary Emergence of Pathogens

I think we can both agree that the larger the infected population, the greater chance of mutation.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
True however Ebola does not historically mutate easily. It kills too fast. a reply to: FlyersFan



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I would and its not 3% off. The testes state 97% positive its Zaire.a 3% difference in the strain could be that the infected dont seem to hemorrhage as much this time And that death is caused by organ breakdown. 3% is still minor and the history of Ebola bears out that it's stable and is slow to mutate. Not that it can't and I certainly didn't speak in absolutes.




t reply to: jadedANDcynical



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Why wouldn't you consider the current outbreak localized? What cases have emerged outside of areas known to have had outbreaks in the past. The case in Nigeria was infected by someone from Liberia. There has been no outbreak outside of Africa. This is a known pathogen from Africa. a reply to: jadedANDcynical



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
I would and its not 3% off. The testes state 97% positive its Zaire.a 3% difference in the strain could be that the infected dont seem to hemorrhage as much this time And that death is caused by organ breakdown. 3% is still minor and the history of Ebola bears out that it's stable and is slow to mutate. Not that it can't and I certainly didn't speak in absolutes.
t reply to: jadedANDcynical


A 3% genetic difference can be substantial - it all depends on what genes are mutated. There is only 3.1% difference between our genome and the apes genome and anyone can easily make a long list of what those are just visually let alone physiologically.


And even less genetic differences (1.2%) between us and Bonobos:


While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree.


Note they say the genetic difference between individual humans is 0.1% and look at how different we can be. Indeed, 3% can be make a vast difference and should not be underestimated and minimized!

humanorigins.si.edu...



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Now you've got the idea...

I, along with many others most likely, have those same questions and more. Despite exhaustive searching, I've not been able to find anything else other than more of the same quote without further elucidation.

Don't pay attention the cape when there is a very dangerous matador with swords present...

 

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

This is why I don't consider this outbreak localized:


edit on 10-8-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: map



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Additional suspect cases are showing up in India:


Mumbai: A man suspected of carrying Ebola virus has been admitted to a Mumbai hospital. The suspect has been kept in a separate room in Vasai's D Y Patil hospital.

He has been kept in separate room. Doctors are conducting test on him.


Man under observation for Ebola virus in Mumbai hospital

And


Reuters
New Delhi: On Sunday, the government said India was on ‘high alert’ for the dreaded Ebola virus. The government also denied reports a Chennai resident was confirmed as infected with the disease.

The health ministry, in coordination with the home and civil aviation ministries, is constantly tracking passengers arriving in India from West African countries affected by Ebola, an official statement said.

It said that although mandatory self-reporting was in place, health officers posted in identified international airports all over India are screening passengers getting off aircraft. "Till now, all those arriving have been found to be healthy," it added


Ebola outbreak: India on alert, govt denies Chennai infection

India has nearly 45,000 nationals living in the four Ebola-affected West African nations





posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
The man in Channia came back from Nigeria but he was in a city four hundred miles from the city that had the nurse die from contact with Patrick Sawyer. There is a thread on it.
Not much info on the man in Mumbai other than that he was being observed. Caution is the game of the day. Never mind the man from Romaina was in Nigeria four hundred miles from Lagos. The man in India in Chennai is still being watched. I'm getting these stories tangled up.






edit on AMu31u0883328312014-08-11T09:28:23-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)

edit on AMu31u0883336312014-08-11T09:36:13-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)

edit on AMu31u0883339312014-08-11T09:39:32-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
NC health officials to quarantine returning missionaries


CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Health officials say missionaries retuning to the United States after working with patients infected with Ebola will be put in quarantine and monitored.

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services says the quarantine will last at least three weeks since the missionaries were last exposed to people infected with the Ebola virus.

The missionaries are with Charlotte-based SIM USA. The aid group says none of them are sick or have shown any signs of having Ebola, but they agree with health officials that everyone should be as cautious as possible.

The aid group isn't releasing how many missionaries were in Liberia or when they will return to protect the privacy of their families.


link



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Strictly a precautionary measure. Smart too. a reply to: MrLimpet



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Interesting note about the nurse in Nigeria. She claims to have not come in contact with Sawyer's body fluids.




One of those Nigerian health care workers, Obi Justina Ejelonu, who was on duty at the First Consultant Hospital in Obalende, Lagos when Sawyer was brought in, is said to be clinging onto her life after contracting the virus. Ironically, Obi Justina had initially posted a message on her Facebook page boasting that she had limited contact with Sawyer and was grateful to God to be alive:

Obi Justina wrote: “I never contacted his fluids. I checked his vitals, helped him with his food (he was too weak)…..I basically touched where his hands touched and that’s the only contact. Not directly with his fluids. At a stage, he yanked off his infusion and we had blood everywhere on his bed…..but the ward maids took care of that and changed his linens with great precaution.”

Link.



Another interesting note is that Patient Zero is reported to be a 2 year old boy, which raises interesting questions about how the infection started. Hmmmm.

Link.
edit on 11-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
The Ebola is a,slow or even stable virus in that it doesn't live long enough to really mutate. It kills its host in many instances which is sad but in the big picture it's good in that mutations have not been noted in the known strains of the disease. . reply to: shrevegal



I would not call 3% difference in sequencing between when ZEBOV was first encountered and the latest iteration stable. Given that its been a number of years since theblast outbreak of this bug, its had plenty of time within its reservoir species to mutate as evidenced by the 3% genetic drift.

I've seen the "ebola doesnt mutate that much" notion posted a few times so I went looking...


However, an alternative (and arguably more likely) cause of novel pathogen emergence is where a “weakly adapted” strain (with R0 ≈ 1) mutates into a strongly adapted strain (with R0 ≫ 1).


It is apparent that the higher the R0, the more adapted the virus.


We produce a model of pathogen emergence that takes into account changes in the susceptible population over time and find that the ongoing depletion of susceptible individuals by the first strain has a drastic effect on the emergence probability of the mutated strain, above that assumed by just scaling the reproductive ratio.


It seems that one of the primary variables in determing the ability of a virus to mutate is the size of the population being infected. This makes logical sense and would be supported if this outbreak had followed the same pattern as prior ones of quick flare-up and die-down due to how deadly it is.

The only problem is that this outbreak is demonsyrably not dying down but seems to be growing beyond all prior outbreaks.

Here is the bit where it talks about outbreak being self-limiting:


However, if R0 [greater than] 1 initially, then the susceptible population would, in general, reduce over time as individuals become immune or die out. This reduces the emergence probability of the second strain, as there are fewer susceptible individuals available to transmit the pathogen to. Furthermore, the initial strain might continue to spread for awhile, hence further depleting the pool of susceptible hosts available to the mutant strain.



Ebola is even specifically mentioned:


Studying emergence of pandemic strains originating from intermediately adapted strains offers more applications for monitoring outbreaks than searching for strains originating from maladapted ones, because the initial strain is present in the population for a longer time. It also opens a new perspective for predicting the pandemic risk for pathogens that are known to be emerging (or re-emerging) but generate only localized outbreaks (e.g., with avian influenza or ebola).


I would not categorize the current outbreak of Ebola as "localized," however.


Overall, this example highlights that while susceptible depletion can strongly limit the emergence of mutated strains, the risk remains on the order of that expected for completely new strains emerging, meaning that there is still a nonnegligible risk of emergence.


Epidemiological Feedbacks Affect Evolutionary Emergence of Pathogens

I think we can both agree that the larger the infected population, the greater chance of mutation.


epidemics are self limiting because viruses or germs die in their own piss!
and epidemic does not last forever untill everybody gets immunity. it only last 2 or 3 time curves, for unknown reasons or just because they die in their own piss.

as for mutation the mutation is a mistake that happens because environment is not perfect.
mutation rate increases when the virus is in stressful situation for a prolonged period of time.
like exposure to radioactive, or staying in a toxic environment like the Pig's belly.

mutations could go both ways, good or bad (depending on who is looking at it)
to have a more virulent strain is mostly done in lab (very advanced technology and science like top 5 superpowers )

Pig eating everything encounter all possible germs who find a place to live in their bellies.

that is why Pig is considered alternative reservoire. so if ebola have only one natural reservoire the bat since infinity, the new invasive species the pig also is an alternative reservoire for any given germ as long the pig live in the area of the natural reservoire, or even away from the natural reservoire if the trash that pig eat is imported from far away (like the germ is fish from Japan found in pigs billy)

since germs live in pigs belly (not infecting ) all kind of garbage and their toxins are dumped on the virus making the virus making more mutations because of the stress that make the dna mistake (mutation increase) so that the dna doubling could be made in a deadline like time.

the time curve unable to materialize in current outbreak of 2014 comparing with previous outbraks means different strains inoclated even different first case in different times.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: reletomp

Viruses piss ?thats a new one to me



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wishes

It's not substantial one significant. They were testing what strain this was not doing genetic testing. Test says 97% sure it's Zaire.




top topics



 
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join