Ebola, inside information

No, it is not spread like the flu at all. That statement is ignorance at its best. Even basic research would show you that Ebola is HARDER to transmit in colder climates because the droplets have a significantly lower radius and the body sweats less even with fever.

a reply to: Biotech2024

am reply to: misskat1

Right, and the CDC says the same so does the who...

That's not the claim in the OP now is it...

The OP claims that it is spread before symptoms show. That is a completely false claim.

Can anyone provide a source for learning just how long these ebola tests take? I've googled the question and can't seem to find a real answer. Most of the official sites just say that tests will be conducted.
When this outbreak in Africa began they were reporting that it was taking up to a week to get the tests back. Some of my sources told me that the tests take up to 72 hours to develop and have a 30% fail rate---that is to say that 30% of the tests were false, either negative or positive and that was the reason for the delay in being able to actually determine whether or not the antibodies were there in the blood.

originally posted by: Biotech2024
a reply to: raymundoko

Ebola will be shown to have similar if not higher transmission rates during winter months. Flu infects only certain cell types whereas Ebola can infect many cell types. It's highly contagious spread through aerosols similar to flu.

There are way too many factors to control to stop this virus. It is beyond the governments ability to control. They know it already.

Only saving grace for them is knowing certain drugs can stop it, if a certain politicians family member gets it they can keep that person alive. But for the common man the production rate for the drugs haven't been ramped up.

Exponential growth implies 500 million infected by mid 2015. The people behind the projections calculations are too scared to mention them in public or media.

I was second in my biochemistry class out of 200.

Chris

12 hours is a typical test return.

a reply to: diggindirt

You were second in your biochemistry class and you don't see the gaping errors in his post?

a reply to: Biotech2024

I'll go through the science of it in a hr or so.

a reply to: raymundoko

You'd be surprised...

But feel free to carry on sans me...

a reply to: bludragin

ack!!! i just read the daily kos blog which cites another article that says it has mutated over 250 times!! they are watching it mutate as it goes?? all we can hope for now is that it mutates itself to death.

(also, it seems like all of the arguing with ray is just sucking up space in this thread. i think it's clear he doesn't agree with the OP and his mind is made up about that. do we need an extra 10 pages of bickering?)

a reply to: raymundoko

Please consider doing a better job of supporting your position. Your sweeping, generalized statements add little to the subject at hand.

a reply to: pasiphae

Good point. Ray who?

originally posted by: raymundoko
12 hours is a typical test return.

a reply to: diggindirt

Excuse me but I asked for a source of information---if you can please provide that I would be very appreciative. A source for information on this subject would be a lab's website saying exactly how long the test takes and their failure rate.
Forgive me if I don't take your word as gospel but in the spirit of this site, I must insist on a source. That was my request. I'll repeat it just so there is no misunderstanding....

Can anyone provide a source for learning just how long these ebola tests take?

a reply to: raymundoko
then why is it taking them so long to determine whether the British man in Macedonia died of Ebola or not
and why could they determine a false alarm in France so soon?

Accordng to RTL radio, around 60 people, some of whom recently visited Guinea, were effectively quarantined and a security cordon was set up around the building. Those inside were asked to remain where they were.

However later in the evening Nevache confirmed that the "suspicion was over" and the workers were allowed to leave.

Just go to threads outside of the grey area or search for my posts. Plenty of science to back me.

a reply to: bludragin

Well stated, Ray makes me realize what the stars are really for.

OK, you won't find that because it varies...I was giving you an average.

www.nola.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

originally posted by: Biotech2024
I'll go through the science of it in a hr or so.

www.msdsonline.com...

very good fact sheet on it..


www.cidrap.umn.edu...


www.godlikeproductions.com...

Yes, and everything in your links agrees with me...not transmissible unless symptomatic.

a reply to: Biotech2024

originally posted by: raymundoko
OK, you won't find that because it varies...I was giving you an average.

www.nola.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

There are companies that make the tests. They will have information on their sites but I can't find their sites at present and my best source is on vacation in the wilderness. These companies will have advertising information about their products that attempt to prove why theirs is best. THAT is what I'm seeking.
A newspaper article? Seriously? You obviously have nothing to add to this conversation in the way of a source that is accurate.

a reply to: raymundoko

Like I said earlier: Your approach is lazy. Post your supportive evidence here on this thread. Why on earth should I look you up, when I have little respect for how you present yourself, and your arguments, on this site? I am interested in the current strain of Ebola's mutations - I find this not only disturbing, but clinically fascinating, as described here: www.vox.com... I am also interested in CDC's own (deliberately?) lazy languaging in regard to the fact that Ebola may be spread via contaminated surfaces - including sweat contaminated surfaces. At least WHO's languaging was a bit more precise.

What are you interested in, other than acting as a sort of Court Jesterish provocateur?