Airborne Ebola transmission finally acknowledged by Washington Post

www.washingtonpost.com...

Finally - buried in the back of the internet. They are now conceding that Ebola CAN pass from one to another without actual physical contact. So much for the "we are all safe as long as we don't touch them" attitude.

The virus can linger, airborne, and be inhaled at a distance of 3-4 feet. How many lines do you stand in daily where you are within 3-4 feet of someone else?

And what about the stale, old, never sees the light of day air that you breathe on an airplane? Hooked to a jetway, which is hooked to the terminal building which is climate controlled (Translation NO FRESH AIR), unhooks (brief moment of real air here), then seal up the tube, launch it off, land it, hook it to another jetway breathing the climate controlled air of its terminal - air travelers do not get to breathe unprocessed air from the time they enter one terminal to the time they exit their destination terminal. ALL those hours, breathing air that has been hanging out in those facilities since when?

I find it difficult to believe that a virus that can travel through the air 3-4 feet has the good manners to die once it gets into an HVAC system, like those on planes and climate controlled buildings. Viruses just don't seem to be altruistic that way.

originally posted by: cronemel
www.washingtonpost.com...

Finally - buried in the back of the internet. They are now conceding that Ebola CAN pass from one to another without actual physical contact. So much for the "we are all safe as long as we don't touch them" attitude.

The virus can linger, airborne, and be inhaled at a distance of 3-4 feet. How many lines do you stand in daily where you are within 3-4 feet of someone else?

And what about the stale, old, never sees the light of day air that you breathe on an airplane? Hooked to a jetway, which is hooked to the terminal building which is climate controlled (Translation NO FRESH AIR), unhooks (brief moment of real air here), then seal up the tube, launch it off, land it, hook it to another jetway breathing the climate controlled air of its terminal - air travelers do not get to breathe unprocessed air from the time they enter one terminal to the time they exit their destination terminal. ALL those hours, breathing air that has been hanging out in those facilities since when?

I find it difficult to believe that a virus that can travel through the air 3-4 feet has the good manners to die once it gets into an HVAC system, like those on planes and climate controlled buildings. Viruses just don't seem to be altruistic that way.

But, but, but Ebola Czar said we're safe. I believed him! I believed every word out of his lying mouth!

We always knew it could spread through the air by droplets.

In contrast, Thursday's review examines the idea that minuscule droplets of body fluid containing the virus could hang in the air and be inhaled by others, providing an unrecognized, if minor, pathway for the virus.

They seem to be trying to confirm the droplet infection theory.

The review itself points out that "to date, investigators have not identified respiratory spread (either via large droplets or small-particle aerosols) of Ebola viruses among humans. This could be because such transmission does not occur or because such transmission has not been recognized, since the number of studies that have carefully examined transmission patterns is small."

Not airborne (as in aerosolized) still droplets.

a reply to: Anyafaj

LOVE it! Perfectly expresses about 23 hours out of the day around here. I tend to refer to it as the brain slamming full stop into the front of the skull...WHA????? It's a mental concussion kind of thing

a reply to: Elton

After struggling through the difference, I think that you are pointing out that the virus cells themselves do not float freely, but that they can be carried through the air when contained within a droplet of some wet substance. Or - Dry virus, no...wet virus yes.

If that is correct, I still fail to see what practical difference that makes to me - the ordinary traveler who does not regularly carry haz mat gear. If that Ebola buggie floats in under his own gossamer power, or slides in on a snot drop...he's in and I am infected. I am a reasonably well informed citizen - and this splitting of hairs needs a LOT more explanation scientifically before I am convinced that droplets are not something I need concern myself with. Frankly - even droplets were downplayed in the media I encountered. The main message I got was - YOU CANNOT GET IT FROM THE AIR. Now they tell me I can. That's where I reacted.

a reply to: cronemel

They say it MAY be. Not that it is. It's still unproven.

The paper, titled 'Transmission of Ebola Viruses: What We Know and What We Do Not Know," takes pains to note that respiratory transmission of Ebola is unproven and that contact with infected body fluids is by far the most common way that the virus is passed from one person to another.

The CDC has apparently posted a one page pdf that has some very interesting info !!!

The pdf is apparently dated 10/27/2014 - 07:54am at the bottom.

Ebola is spread through droplets

Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are
coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of
another person.

Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter) from one person to another.

A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has
germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose.

Droplet spread diseases include: plague, Ebola.


What’s the difference between infections
spread through the air or by droplets?

Dropplets !!!!

old thread

a reply to: cronemel

It's not so much a splitting of hairs as it is lay people discussing epidemiology and not realizing they use very specific terms (like any science specialty).

and from the OP:

investigators have not identified respiratory spread (either via large droplets or small-particle aerosols) of Ebola viruses among humans.

So feel free to be concerned, the article says that we've not yet confirmed a case of Ebola contracted by droplets in humans (although I personally have no doubts that if someone Ebola sneezes on you then you will be exposed).

a reply to: cronemel

We have known this. It can transmit in a sneeze, droplets from vomit or fecal material.

It still is not an airborne virus. When they say airborne they don't mean droplets which is what this is, they mean a virus like measles that can float in the air without settling for 8 hours. A virus that can be expelled through respiration.

This is not really new information and the virus still is not airborne (with the exception of Ebola Reston strain).

originally posted by: cronemel
a reply to: Anyafaj

LOVE it! Perfectly expresses about 23 hours out of the day around here. I tend to refer to it as the brain slamming full stop into the front of the skull...WHA????? It's a mental concussion kind of thing

Oh you mean this??




You are welcome to save both my friend. LOL it's how I've been feeling lately. You're welcome to save my avatar as well. LOL

It's funny, I was just watching the movie Outbreak a few days ago and thinking that "Motaba" sounded a lot like Ebola is now today. I had to laugh a lot throughout the movie at the similarities.

Came from Africa, causes bleeding internally from multiple sites, kills quickly, etc. And just like in the movie, now it's airborne too? It just keeps getting more and more fantastic. -.- Well, I guess if people that are infected stay quarantined and if the CDC stays on top of it, we'll still be just fine.


Oh, it's still droplets. I knew I didn't see the word "aerosalized" . >.< D'oh. Well, old news.

a reply to: Myomistress

The movie was actually based on Ebola.
But Ebola is not airborne. Nothing has changed. The report here doesn't even actually say it's airborne, just that you can catch it without physical contact. That has always been the case just people weren't smart enough to comprehend that they meant physical contact with infected bodily fluids. They don't understand the difference between airborne virus and bodily fluids that are briefly in the air because of coughing, sneezing, or splashing vomit or fecal material.

Again nothing has changed.

Oh, cool. That is why it was so similar then. Same basic disease one's just... A lot more sensationalized by Hollywood. At least I don't THINK there have been any cases of dead ebola patients having liquified organs.

Asked why many more people who were near Ebola victims had not become infected, Osterholm said the Ebola virus may be much less contagious than other diseases spread by respiration, such as measles. He likened it to tuberculosis, which is more difficult to contract this way.

As already pointed out, it is not confirmed, just not ruled out.
They have said that you could get it that way since the begging, that is just very unlikely.

Thought we were done with the ebola stuff when it died out here in the states like almost every doctor said it would.

Droplets or air borne, very different things. An air borne virus needs no carrier, such as mucus. They are completely different in vector. In effect though, in closed surroundings, a droplet can be launched a considerable distance.

originally posted by: Myomistress
Oh, cool. That is why it was so similar then. Same basic disease one's just... A lot more sensationalized by Hollywood. At least I don't THINK there have been any cases of dead ebola patients having liquified organs.

Well, no. Ebola can (and has) resulted in exactly that, liquification of the victims organs. See, the way Ebola works/spreads is it tricks a cell into letting it through its cell wall. Then once inside, it uses the cells own ability to replicate its DNA to its advantage by replicating, and replicating, and replicating within the cell until such time as the cell contains so much Ebola strands that it literally bursts the cell wall. Once it bursts the cell wall, each of those freed Ebola strands then infects a nearby cell. Lather, rinse, repeat, billions of times....and you have organs with no cell walls left...i.e. liquid organs.

Its not a pretty site. I've read extensively on Ebola outbreaks since 1995, including the outbreak in Reston, VA (merely miles from Washington, DC) back in 1989 (one source).

But if you want to read about its exploits in full, you must read this book:



Sweet dreams....

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

They say ""It is very likely that at least some degree of Ebola virus transmission currently occurs via infectious aerosols generated from the gastrointestinal tract, the respiratory tract, or medical procedures."

Here are some other formal uses of the phrase "It is very likely"

"In this article, we will explain why we believe the upcoming Phase 3 trial, PERSIST-1, will be very likely to be positive."

seekingalpha.com...
In this case, the phrase is being used to justify proceeding with pharmaceutical trials of a human drug. We all know that drug companies are bottom line conscious. Telling investors that something is very likely has come to mean - as sure a bet as we can make given what we know now.

"“If the Cayuga Facility is not repowered, it is very likely that the generation used to replace the Cayuga Facility would come from less-efficient units, and thus higher carbon emitting units, especially during peak demand periods,” the power plant said."

ithacavoice.com... Here, the beginner's guide seeks to insure that the power plant gets the money it wants by forcing the conclusion that withholding the funds will mean a lower quality of life, both in increased pollution, and possibility of brown outs. Doesn't say that, you say? What else could the power plant (and by the way - that interview would be a wonderful one...which set of doors are actually the plant's mouth?) mean by phrases like - less efficient units during peak demand periods...smells like brownout in doublespeak to me - if not outright failures. And..." higher carbon emitting units" - more double think for PANIC - the air will turn black with all that carbon.

Words are tools in the hands of the skilled - and weasel phraseslike "It is very likely" which are intended ONLY to cover one's assets in case a superior actually reads this - mislead and misdirect public attention. It is very likely MEANS - bet the farm on it.

Shhhhhh! We're not supposed to talk about Ebola anymore!

Ebola Czar's job description: Shut them the hell up.

March 1st, 2015: Well done!

March 2nd: Ron Klain is appointed "measles czar". lol

a reply to: cronemel

Isn't the Ebola scare near enough over?

I'm sure I read just couple days ago that those Western African Nations were nearly over it..

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: cronemel

Isn't the Ebola scare near enough over?

I'm sure I read just couple days ago that those Western African Nations were nearly over it..

The alarmists will never accept that Ebola isn't easily transmitted in most countries, and is treatable if caught quickly. Remember when internet fear mongerers were all over the place demanding all flights grounded before we all died?