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 Mutating: Sustained H2H Transmission

page: 5
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: joho99

true


armakirais




posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: joho99

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: soficrow



And if 5 researchers can die while working on Ebola, those of us without the gear are pretty much screwed.


This.
They KNEW the dangers associated with working with it... or DID they? It's one or it's the other. Ok, I guess it could be both.

1. If they knew the dangers of catching it on the job, either they got sloppy and lackadaisical with protection protocol (but 5 of them, really? Knowing the risk?) ...or they made deadly mistakes that caused a breach in their 'armor.' (Again-- 5 of them, really?)

2. Perhaps it is more infectious than they knew-- even more so than their best efforts to err on the side of caution (because I'd like to believe that researchers 'respect' this pathogen enough to take every necessary precaution possible!)

It's hard for me to believe (Option #1) that five of them got sloppy and lackadaisical. The stakes are just too high to snub protocol. It's equally hard to believe 5 suffered from a breach of their protective garb (if so, it is not durable enough to be reliable, clearly.)

No, my instincts tell me there is more to it than we know, than the experts know (or will divulge.) Reluctantly, I choose Door #2 in this sick game: The strain is/became more infectious, more easily transmitted, than those five researchers imagined. More infectious even beyond their best efforts to err on the side of caution, as anyone would, who has knowledge of Ebola and a desire to live.

What are your thoughts on the circumstances of their death, sofi? (Sorry if it's earlier in the thread... I haven't caught up!)



Or perhaps they was intentionally infected and made to look sloppy.

1 is a accident 2 is a coincidence 3 seems incompetent 5 seems intentional if you want to remove the people who could help stop the spread.


people seem to be skirting round it like other humans could not be capable of mass killing when history tells us otherwise


An therein lies the most sinister scenario of them all. I did not consider that. What is this, a conspiracy site?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: joho99

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: soficrow



And if 5 researchers can die while working on Ebola, those of us without the gear are pretty much screwed.


This.
They KNEW the dangers associated with working with it... or DID they? It's one or it's the other. Ok, I guess it could be both.

1. If they knew the dangers of catching it on the job, either they got sloppy and lackadaisical with protection protocol (but 5 of them, really? Knowing the risk?) ...or they made deadly mistakes that caused a breach in their 'armor.' (Again-- 5 of them, really?)

2. Perhaps it is more infectious than they knew-- even more so than their best efforts to err on the side of caution (because I'd like to believe that researchers 'respect' this pathogen enough to take every necessary precaution possible!)

It's hard for me to believe (Option #1) that five of them got sloppy and lackadaisical. The stakes are just too high to snub protocol. It's equally hard to believe 5 suffered from a breach of their protective garb (if so, it is not durable enough to be reliable, clearly.)

No, my instincts tell me there is more to it than we know, than the experts know (or will divulge.) Reluctantly, I choose Door #2 in this sick game: The strain is/became more infectious, more easily transmitted, than those five researchers imagined. More infectious even beyond their best efforts to err on the side of caution, as anyone would, who has knowledge of Ebola and a desire to live.

What are your thoughts on the circumstances of their death, sofi? (Sorry if it's earlier in the thread... I haven't caught up!)



Or perhaps they was intentionally infected and made to look sloppy.

1 is a accident 2 is a coincidence 3 seems incompetent 5 seems intentional if you want to remove the people who could help stop the spread.


people seem to be skirting round it like other humans could not be capable of mass killing when history tells us otherwise


An therein lies the most sinister scenario of them all. I did not consider that. What is this, a conspiracy site?

nah its just a 50/50 bet

one a pure random accident of nature.
two a intentional act of humans.

both have happened in history just up till now nature was better at it lol



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
So, if fatality is going down, even if the virus is spreading more, wouldn't that be a good thing? I mean, granted ideally, it would just burn out or be stopped. But, if it's going to be a pandemic, a less lethal one would be preferable to a more lethal one, right? Especially if the symptoms are more mild. Certainly, nobody WANTS the virus, it's a bad time even with mild symptoms, but if it doesn't kill you....



Let's say it drops to 30% fatality as it spreads globally.

Current pipulation is a tad over 7.2 billion.

That leaves us around 2.2 Billion dead.

How is that ok?


That would be perfectly OK with the elite. In fact, that's about what they are aiming at.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: joho99

I am not very concerned about mass contamination through semen or breast milk. I think that is an unlikely scenario. However, any bodily fluid can carry the virus. Tears, sweat, saliva, etc. That is what is driving the current increase in reported cases. It was originally only contractible through direct contact with an infected persons bodily fluids. If it can survive outside the host for longer periods of time it will become possible to contract the virus by simply touching something an infected person also touched. That makes the rate of transmission much higher and harder to stop. The only step left is for it to become airborne. Then you don't even have to touch anything. All you have to do is breath. Something I try to do regularly...



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




But if somebody sneezed in the open air in a city, somebody 1 mile away will not get it.
So think enclosed spaces for airborne; subways, trains, & buses. Anywhere people gather in numbers, a hockey arena or other sporting venue that is a closed building, movie theaters and so on.

I guess it depends how long the disease survives onces it leaves it's biological host, clearly Ebola can and does.


Good point, Bluejay. And I think it is up to 7 days survival outside the host (as BobAtHome clarified earlier in the thread.) I had thought it was much longer, but 7 days is still too long. I can walk a lot of miles in 7 days (reference to your 'mile away' statement above) touching hand rails and door knobs on my way to try on sixteen blouses at Belks. That bottle of salad dressing at the grocery? How should I know EbolaMan picked it up with sweaty hands (yes, sweat) 3 days ago while his 'flu-like symptoms' were taking hold. And no need to be cooped up in the theater with EbolaMan, my friend! He merely sneezes on the seat in front of him, and 5 days later you grab onto it as you stand up to exit during the scrolling of the credits of [insert Apocalyptic Move Title Here.]

Of course, he must be symptomatic to infect. But who can pinpoint that with precision? Because with Ebola, it's a crucial moment. (Ever start to feel icky, then discover you have a fever? The exact moment of your symptoms is more like... about a half-hour ago... or so.)

So EbolaMan's in the grocery when the icky feeling comes out of no where, and quickly begins to escalate. But he's gotta grab that Ranch dressing-- oops wrong brand... ah, there it is--- cause the wife'll kill him (before Ebola) because they need it for dinner (his wife and 3 kids, that is... he's just trying to get through the checkout before he pukes.) "I must have food poison," he says of the sudden intestinal emergency on the drive home. Handing the bottle to his wife, he collapses. His adoring children rush to him while his wife grabs the phone.

Can we please do something about International travel until this gets under control???

edit on 8/30/2014 by new_here because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: joho99

I am not very concerned about mass contamination through semen or breast milk. I think that is an unlikely scenario. However, any bodily fluid can carry the virus. Tears, sweat, saliva, etc. That is what is driving the current increase in reported cases. It was originally only contractible through direct contact with an infected persons bodily fluids. If it can survive outside the host for longer periods of time it will become possible to contract the virus by simply touching something an infected person also touched. That makes the rate of transmission much higher and harder to stop. The only step left is for it to become airborne. Then you don't even have to touch anything. All you have to do is breath. Something I try to do regularly...



Actually semen is a perfect way to spread it in Africa because of some of the beliefs they have adopted.
The virgin cleansing myth (also referred to as the virgin cure myth, , or simply virgin myth) is the mistaken belief that having sex with a virgin girl cures a man of HIV, AIDS, or other sexually transmitted diseases As many as 3,600 girls in Zimbabwe each year may be contracting HIV/AIDS after being raped



It would only be a small step for them to include ebola in some way

Breast milk is a obvious spread



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix


....The OP if FILLED with incorrect information...this outbreak didn't originate from HUMANS...a human got it from an animal that was a natural reservoir...JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER OUTBREAK. ....

And the whole BS about it is "mutating twice as fast now" is just pure doom porn...

This outbreak is a serious situation in Africa right now...many people are dying...whole families are dying...quit trying to use it as your own grotesque source for entertainment.

Just stop.


You are not reading the cited sources, are you? The info is drawn from a genetic analysis done by a team of scientists, led by Harvard scientists, and published in Science Magazine. Hard to beat them credentials. Or do you not understand the scientific terminology? ....

fyi:

* "No evidence of additional zoonotic sources" means it started with an animal-to-human infection, but after that was just human-to-human.

* The quote "the Ebola virus strain in West Africa appears to be mutating twice as fast as it did in the past" is correctly attributed to researcher and virologist Robert Garry, one of the paper's co-authors. The link to the NBC article that used the quote also was provided in the OP. If you think your credentials and conclusions are more valid than Garry's, I suggest you speak with him directly.


Genomic surveillance elucidates Ebola virus origin and transmission during the 2014 outbreak

....We observed a rapid accumulation of interhost and intrahost genetic variation, allowing us to characterize patterns of viral transmission over the initial weeks of the epidemic. This West African variant likely diverged from Middle African lineages ~2004, crossed from Guinea to Sierra Leone in May 2014, and has exhibited sustained human-to-human transmission subsequently, with no evidence of additional zoonotic sources. Since many of the mutations alter protein sequences and other biologically meaningful targets, they should be monitored for impact on diagnostics, vaccines, and therapies critical to outbreak response.


All viruses mutate, and scientists can use the mutations as a kind of clock to trace the evolution and movement of a virus. Right now, says Garry, the Ebola virus strain in West Africa appears to be mutating twice as fast as it did in the past when it lived in an animal “reservoir,” probably a bat.

“It’s going to change,” Garry said. “A human being is not a bat. The longer this virus is allowed to propagate human to human, the more it is going to adapt.”








edit on 30/8/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Good work, I think that the most important things are the sustained human to human infection that is going on and the fact that the virus will continue to adapt to facilitate human-to-human infection....


Thank you, and I agree.
....fyi - Ebola's sustained human-to-human transmission looks a lot like Lassa Hemorrhagic fever transmission on the surface. Interesting to note that the bio-war research started with Lassa before moving on to include Ebola (in Kenema Government Hospital in Sierra Leone, and Irua Teaching Hospital/University of Lagos in Nigeria).



Transmission of Lassa virus to humans occurs most commonly through ingestion or inhalation. Mastomys rodents shed the virus in urine and droppings and direct contact with these materials, through touching soiled objects, eating contaminated food, or exposure to open cuts or sores, can lead to infection. …..Contact with the virus may also occur when a person inhales tiny particles in the air contaminated with infected rodent excretions. This aerosol or airborne transmission may occur during cleaning activities, such as sweeping.

…..person-to-person transmission may occur after exposure to virus in the blood, tissue, secretions, or excretions of a Lassa virus-infected individual. Casual contact (including skin-to-skin contact without exchange of body fluids) does not spread Lassa virus. Person-to-person transmission is common in health care settings (called nosocomial transmission) where proper personal protective equipment (PPE) is not available or not used. Lassa virus may be spread in contaminated medical equipment, such as reused needles.







edit on 30/8/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/8/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The more infected people there are, the more virus there is, the more mutations there are, the higher the potential for more dangerous mutations to occur.



Exactly. S&



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePublicEnemyNo1

Their definition of aerosols vs airborne, is a bunch of crap...period! If you freakin' sneeze, then you are releasing airborne particles where? Into the air!


S&
...They do the same linguistic dance with aerosol-airborne Lassa Fever. See quote above.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I don't usually like to quote Hollywood in regards to real life, it seems to work so much better the other way around. However, there was a line in the movie "Outbreak" that may apply here. The Colonel in charge of the facility the bug escaped from said something like, "Any chance we had of containment ended the first time that guy stopped to buy a burger."

That is the threat of a mutating virus. Whoever said all viruses mutate is correct. Taking it from a bat or monkey where it has been for the last forty years and putting it in a human, that is some serious mutation. And watching it learn to survive longer and longer outside the host is truly frightening. One of the things that prevented this disease from being such a huge threat in the past was how effective it was at killing. People didn't usually live long enough to spread it around. And viruses are stupid. They kill their host and in the process kill themselves. Unless they learn to live without a host. With travel happening much more and much faster than ever before, and the virus learning to survive longer and longer, the threat of major loss of life is very real.

We also need to overcome the arrogance of thinking we can control this, even one patient at a time. We have to show this bug some respect or it will do as it pleases.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: joho99

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: soficrow



And if 5 researchers can die while working on Ebola, those of us without the gear are pretty much screwed.


This.
They KNEW the dangers associated with working with it... or DID they? It's one or it's the other. Ok, I guess it could be both.



1. If they knew the dangers of catching it on the job, either they got sloppy and lackadaisical with protection protocol (but 5 of them, really? Knowing the risk?) ...or they made deadly mistakes that caused a breach in their 'armor.' (Again-- 5 of them, really?)

2. Perhaps it is more infectious than they knew-- even more so than their best efforts to err on the side of caution (because I'd like to believe that researchers 'respect' this pathogen enough to take every necessary precaution possible!)

It's hard for me to believe (Option #1) that five of them got sloppy and lackadaisical. The stakes are just too high to snub protocol. It's equally hard to believe 5 suffered from a breach of their protective garb (if so, it is not durable enough to be reliable, clearly.)

No, my instincts tell me there is more to it than we know, than the experts know (or will divulge.) Reluctantly, I choose Door #2 in this sick game: The strain is/became more infectious, more easily transmitted, than those five researchers imagined. More infectious even beyond their best efforts to err on the side of caution, as anyone would, who has knowledge of Ebola and a desire to live.

What are your thoughts on the circumstances of their death, sofi? (Sorry if it's earlier in the thread... I haven't caught up!)



Or perhaps they was intentionally infected and made to look sloppy.

1 is a accident 2 is a coincidence 3 seems incompetent 5 seems intentional if you want to remove the people who could help stop the spread.


people seem to be skirting round it like other humans could not be capable of mass killing when history tells us otherwise


An therein lies the most sinister scenario of them all. I did not consider that. What is this, a conspiracy site?



there is a survival rate of 40 to 60 percent...does that mean that several others were infected that survived, that they are not telling us about???
edit on 31-8-2014 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: research100

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: joho99

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: soficrow



And if 5 researchers can die while working on Ebola, those of us without the gear are pretty much screwed.


This.
They KNEW the dangers associated with working with it... or DID they? It's one or it's the other. Ok, I guess it could be both.



1. If they knew the dangers of catching it on the job, either they got sloppy and lackadaisical with protection protocol (but 5 of them, really? Knowing the risk?) ...or they made deadly mistakes that caused a breach in their 'armor.' (Again-- 5 of them, really?)

2. Perhaps it is more infectious than they knew-- even more so than their best efforts to err on the side of caution (because I'd like to believe that researchers 'respect' this pathogen enough to take every necessary precaution possible!)

It's hard for me to believe (Option #1) that five of them got sloppy and lackadaisical. The stakes are just too high to snub protocol. It's equally hard to believe 5 suffered from a breach of their protective garb (if so, it is not durable enough to be reliable, clearly.)

No, my instincts tell me there is more to it than we know, than the experts know (or will divulge.) Reluctantly, I choose Door #2 in this sick game: The strain is/became more infectious, more easily transmitted, than those five researchers imagined. More infectious even beyond their best efforts to err on the side of caution, as anyone would, who has knowledge of Ebola and a desire to live.

What are your thoughts on the circumstances of their death, sofi? (Sorry if it's earlier in the thread... I haven't caught up!)



Or perhaps they was intentionally infected and made to look sloppy.

1 is a accident 2 is a coincidence 3 seems incompetent 5 seems intentional if you want to remove the people who could help stop the spread.


people seem to be skirting round it like other humans could not be capable of mass killing when history tells us otherwise


An therein lies the most sinister scenario of them all. I did not consider that. What is this, a conspiracy site?



there is a survival rate of 40 to 60 percent...does that mean that several others were infected that survived, that they are not telling us about???


Undoubtedly. I must say... you do have a point.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Lol at that avatar soficrow.

Has anyone personally known someone who has come down with a case of ebola? For # sake. Fear monger level = very high



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
So this could be the cause that's going to wipe out man .. I mean there was this story that they had a cure right? And are they stopping any flights coming from afrika or affected areas?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

The number of deaths at the time was 1,552 from 3,069 cases reported. While the 2014 outbreak had occurred in March 2014, 40% of the cases had been reported in the previous 3 weeks, WHO revealed, adding the acceleration could see the number of cases reported exceed 20,000.


then, if 40 million within a year......according to my humble calculations.... it's 6,5 billion within 18 months.

geeeez
edit on 31-8-2014 by Necrose because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
So this could be the cause that's going to wipe out man .. I mean there was this story that they had a cure right? And are they stopping any flights coming from afrika or affected areas?



It will not wipe us out by itself.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I just read this article from Science AAAS but it seems that this Ebola virus was sparked by at least two distinct viruses, introduced from Guinea at about the same time.



new analysis, strengthened by the unprecedented number of genomes, supports another theory: that the virus spread, via animal hosts, from Central Africa within the last decade. Researchers aren't sure which animal to blame, but fruit bats are their leading suspects
At least one fruit bat species known to carry ebolavirus has a population range that stretches from Central Africa across to Guinea






Further studies of the differences between the various Ebola lineages might link such mutations to the virus's behavior—how lethal it is, and how easily it spreads, for example.
“The paper shows the unrealized potential of what these methods could do,” says Roman Biek, who studies the evolution and ecology of infectious diseases at the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom.

Missing from thd in Liberia and Guinea. Stephan Günther of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg, Germany, says he has samples from Guinea in his lab, waiting to be sequenced once he and colleagues can find the time.

(This week Günther was in Nigeria, tracing contacts of an Ebola patient there, who was infected by a traveler from Liberia.) Researchers in Liberia have also collected samplese sequencing analysis are Ebola samples from people infecte, but are focused on attempting to slow the epidemic there, where it is spreading in the densely populated capital and shows no signs of slowing down.

Congo is also on high alert as Ebola has popped up in a remote region in the northwest of the country. As Science went to press, it was not clear which ebolavirus is causing that outbreak.)


Its mutating and spreading fast .. scarry stuff

Science AAAS



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Think about the average persons day. They get up early in the morning, get in their car, drive to work, maybe stop on the way to get gas, touch the gas pump, get a breakfast sandwich, eat it without washing their hands, go on public transit and touch things thousands of other people have touched, go to work and touch doorknobs, computer keyboards, use the bathroom, etc. There are dozens of points of contact every day. I remember once at my place of work a man came to fix a piece of equipment, he told me upon leaving that he had just spent two weeks in bed with the flu. I had been using a keyboard he used all day and by the next day was sick. By the end of the week, five or six people were sick at my workplace. Just from ONE person who was asymptomatic of an illness coming in and not telling people until contamination had already occurred. The truth is, we may not have ebola here yet, but we all have to act like we do in taking precautions, ie hand washing, disinfecting surfaces, and you have to sort of think out all the ways you could be exposed and protect yourself. IMHO this thing is only spread by direct contact with body fluids, but if it in fact does mutate to something that can live on a surface, we should definitely be washing our hands constantly. The problem is it can spread for weeks before anyone realizes its here, and by then a lot of people could be infected.

As far as the virus mutating, the strains that are most efficient at spreading will become the most prevalent. Unfortunately that probably means it will mutate to last longer outside the body. The less efficient strains will tend to burn out. As far as it becoming airborne, there would probably be limiting factors, ie if its carried in droplets from a sneeze, it wont have unlimited range. If it takes on a spore like form, ie just particles of live virus floating in the air, that is a real worry. Not sure how many viruses are capable of doing this, but I dont think its many.

When the black death tore through Europe, a lot of people survived by isolating themselves, ie staying in their homes for an extended period of time. If it does in fact become a pandemic, people are NOT going to want to go to public places, ie malls, theaters etc. In a way we are better prepared for this aspect because of the web. Home shopping is going to become even more popular. But its probably going to take a huge toll on the economy whereever there is social gathering, ie malls restaurants etc.


At some point it will burn itself out, pandemics always do. People just have to be well informed on whatever way they can protect themselves and start taking precautions NOW, instead of waiting for it to surface. Basic hand washing with an antiseptic soap is a good start. This is something we should all do anyway, regardless of ebola, there are a lot of other nasty things out there.
edit on 31-8-2014 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join